Look, it's not murder because it's not a sure thing that we're going to suffer the type of catastrophic event that would result in continent wide starvation that most regard as the sort of catalyst for normal people in the suburbs to be spontaneously forming mad max looter, rapist, thug gangs to survive via the locust tactic.
The risk of this happening is not 0, but it's not 50/50 either. First of all because it's never happened in the 250 years of recent history that an entire continent was so plunged into chaos that food deliveries were suspended to a land 3500 miles wide and 2000 miles north to south.
Suppose Iran floated a modified scud off the Eastern sea board and launched a nuke to 300 km altitude. The EMP might (MIGHT) wipe out all electronics from Maine to Norfolk. But even so, this unprecedented event would not affect inland cities and states. It would be "the end of the world" and "lights' out' for those immediately affected and for up to 2 months, but the rest of the country and world would flood food, water, generators, etc. into the area.
If some country tried to EMP the whole country we'd probably nuke them back into the stone age.
So if some guy "only" stockpiled enough food for 1 month, he's not PLANNING murder, he's just drawing the line somewhere.
Otherwise the argument could easily be made against anyone that since they're not planning to ride out full nuclear war in a bunker for 3 years, they are planning to murder helpless tresspassers on their property merely looking for food or medicine for their starving children.
When in reality people just decide that they can't afford a super-bunker and so prepare to their level and degree of income and 'hope to God' nothing worse happens.
Look, it's like going fishing without hauling your complete bug out supplies with you....are you planning murder in the event the disaster of the millennia catches you unawares and far from your bunker? No of course not. You just assume it won't happen when you're not ready.