I doubt it. I can be very annoying, but I would be extremely reluctant to take another’s life, even in self-defense. So, I would annoy someone, who would try to kill me, and I would not be able to defend myself quickly and effectively.
Maybe if I survived a year or two, I could adapt, but I doubt it.
Which tribes would these be?
The only time someone’s pulled a gun on me, it was because on the break during a game of pool I sank two stripes and my assailant didn’t like playing solids. And we’re talking reality here - years in prison and me dead because of that. A world without consequences? No one would be safe, no matter how innocuous a life they led. My brother coaches pee-wee basketball, for Pete’s sake! He’d be killed dozens of times over something with literally nothing at stake (in this participation trophy age).
Hell no.
I’d have been beaten to death, in Junior High School.
For kicks.
I DO like the way you think! Happy Holidays…! 
If the thing called the government stopped offering any protection against personal violence, people would band together to either use the threat of violence to control other people and take whatever they want, or to protect each other from those who do. You would end up with the former government gone and replaced with some new structure, which might be just a copy of the now-defunct police and legal system, might be local warlords, might be feudal, but in any case will offer some level of protection from arbitrary killing. A society where everyone can just kill whoever they want isn’t going to last for long at all.
But that wasn’t the premise, was it? Just that murder is legal.
True, that could lead to a legal case bizarre to us in which a defendant to assault pleads not guilty on the grounds s/he was trying to beat the victim to death, but a sophisticated legal system could deal with that.
Maybe. I’ve dodged a few good attempts as it is; maybe my luck would hold.
Yes, the premise is that the government stopped protecting against the strongest form of personal violence. Once your government stops protecting against murder, it is failing to protect against personal violence, even if it keeps some other types technically illegal. The idea that you’re going to say ‘anyone can murder anyone’ and that no one is going to form organizations to protect themselves and retaliate if they get murdered ignores all of human history.
In practice, protections against more minor forms of personal violence will vanish quickly. Once I have or join a murder gang to back me, I can ignore any minor laws at will. Cops and judges aren’t going to bother me about small crimes if the consequence for a judicial finding that I don’t like is my gang legally murdering them and the government not being allowed to interfere. If government forces try to protect them from my retaliation, then they are actually saying that this particular murder is no longer legal, and breaking the premise of the hypothetical. If they do want to get me for something, it rapidly becomes easier and cheaper to simply kill me than to try to arrest and prosecute me, which makes the formal legal system even more irrelevant.
I’m sure some people would want to keep things the same, or try to use social pressure to keep things under control. But social pressure and hope just aren’t effective tools against people willing to kill you if they don’t like you if you don’t have your own organization (like a current government) willing to protect you from it.
Those are not the same statements, nor are they the premise.
You might the the rest of the scenario you propose would be a result of the premise, but it is still not the premise.
Killing another person currently is legal in several circumstances and the result has not been people banding together to commit wholesale slaughter.
Yeah, that absolutely would have happened to me as well. Football players with no societal restraints? The mind reels.
Yeah they do. It’s called “war.” It’s very popular.
…and evidently profitable.
Murder was legal under some circumstances (vendetta killing) in at least one fairly advanced society, Tokugawa Japan. If you felt you had been wronged you could apply to the authorities for permission to seek revenge, the offender was notified, and you had a short period of time to attempt to kill them. Make of that what you will.
Would I be alive? Yeah, but a lot of people I’ve known wouldn’t be. I am the one who knocks. 
One is the premise, that the government has decided that the strongest form of personal violence is no longer illegal. The other is simple application of language - if the government stops protecting you against all variants of the most significant form of personal violence, then they are not protecting you against personal violence, because there’s a major category of it that they have said they won’t protect against. If an auto insurance company says that they will no longer cover you for a wreck with damage over $500 but will cover you for minor dings, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that they that they no longer protect you from collision damage, even though there are some minor forms of collision damage that they cover.
I’m not sure why you wrote this; I never asserted that people would ‘band together to commit wholesale slaughter’. I said that people would form organizations to use violence and the threat of violence to protect themselves, and that has certainly happened, as shown by the various forms of government (whether centralized state or local tribal or mafia style) that essentially everyone lives under.
I’d be fine at the moment but 30 years down the track would probably have an “Inigo Montoya” moment when my old boss’s sons finally caught up with me.
Yes. Everybody loves me.
I believe he’s referring to the Açao-Figuras, a diverse collection believed to originate from China. Known for their inflexibility and tendency to devalue their peers who move outside their social “packaging.”
Obrigado.
Wars do not result from individual acts of legal killing for the most part. (I’m sure they have at one time or another, but not as a general rule.)
So, it’s not the premise? Right.
But, no, I do not accept your assertion that part is the whole because you believe it is the most significant part. I don’t agree that the premise includes “all variants”, I won’t allow the assumption that killing is the “most significant form of personal violence”, I don’t even accept the assumption that legal killing must be a violent act.
I don’t see any point in continuing conversation with you, because you don’t seem to want to converse using the norms of the English language, and want to play ‘gotcha’ with your nonstandard usage instead of trying to reach a common understanding. When you’re redefining words to the point that killing someone is not a violent act, that killing people is not the most significant form of personal violence, and that failing to protect against a major part of a category still means you’re protecting against the category, it’s difficult to hold an intelligent conversation. And when you refuse to make your unusual use of terms clear and instead just declare that I’m wrong without any argument, you move it to ‘impossible’.