The distinction is no more important than "auto" vs. "semi-auto" (I mean, you all know what I'm talking about, so the exact verbage isn't important), or "assault rifle" vs. "assault-style rifle," "assault weapon," "military-style rifle", or "modern sporting rifle" (after all, we all know what is being discusssed, don't we?). Rimfires are practically centerfires in their application, and revolvers operate the same as DA semi-auto pistols, so they're the same thing, too, right?
Imprecise and sloppy use of language invariably ends up with us debating in Newspeak and listening for Dog-Whistles.
Words mean things (to paraphrase Rush who is certaintly correct on at least this matter), and to use them carelessly will result in a weak, incoherent argument that is easily subverted by others. Poorly worded legislation is the best example of "the spirit underdstood by all present" being completely irrelevant to the people who will end up interpreting and enforcing them by either exacting or arbitrary standards; whichever the law permits. We are after specific goals, therefore we must use precise language.
TCB