Facetious at best.

I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you’d respond in an honest manner. I’m not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they’re irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.

You’ve made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don’t expect any further engagement from me.

“The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.”

You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can’t just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).

The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.

Your example does not support the point you’re trying to make.

Gun = murder device. Gun <> murder. You can’t just arbitrarily switch between the two concepts.

Anti-anti-murder device = pro-murder device. Double negative