only 3 gun action types? change my mind...

[Pistoler0]

Let me start by saying that I find the adoption of the "change my mind" meme as being a counter productive means of discourse by asserting a dominant stance and requiring it be overcome.

But that is precisely how science is done! (the geek in me has to say): by rejecting the "status quo" in favor of something new.

An established "null hypothesis", Ho (N "naught" the status quo), is challenged by an "alternative hypothesis" H1, by means of data that tries to statistically debunk ("reject") the old null.

If the new data "does not reject" the old hypothesis, we stay with the status quo. If the new data "rejects" the old idea when statistically comparing it with the alternative (with an accepted % degree of confidence "alpha"), we move on to the new thing.

Thus I thought there was merit in the "change my mind" premise of the OP:
If you don't bring about new data, I ain't going to change my old beliefs with which I have been operating fine until now.

Science is not built on discovering truths, that is impossible with the tools of science. Science is the data driven rejection of falsehoods.

The airplane you fly in (the building in which you stand, the drug you take for your ailment, the vaccine we may take for Covid? ) is not built based on proof that it will fly, it is instead put together based on data that REJECTS (with an acceptable degree of certainty, say alpha=1%) that it will CRASH. Alpha, btw, is the "probability of wrongly rejecting".

Sorry for the geeky dissertation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

An established "null hypothesis", Ho (N "naught" the status quo), is challenged by an "alternative hypothesis" H1, by means of data that tries to statistically debunk ("reject") the old null.

If the new data "does not reject" the old hypothesis, we stay with the status quo. If the new data "rejects" the old idea when statistically comparing it with the alternative (with an accepted % degree of confidence "alpha"), we move on to the new thing.

Thus I thought there was merit in the "change my mind" premise of the OP:
If you don't bring about new data, I ain't going to change my old beliefs with which I have been operating fine until now.

But what new data are you introducing? It seems to me that you are just trying to rearrange the existing data.

I'm not interested in changing your mind. I've been getting along using the existing nomenclature for 70+ years. If you want to reject the accepted nomenclature and create your own, go right ahead. The problem is that, if you use your nomeclature when discussing firearm with someone else, they won't know what you're talking about.

F'rinstance: The North American coyote is classified as kingdom: Animalia; phylum Chordata; class: Mammailia; order: Carnivora; family: Canidae; genus: Canis; species: Canis Latrans. Without finding a new species of coyote or introducing any new data, I decide that I'd rather call them genus Rockus and species Jarvis. I can do that, it makes perfect sense to me, and I always know what I'm talking about. But nobody else does. What have I gained?

 

[44 AMP]

To get even simpler, using classic lit,
"a rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet"
This is true, but calling a rose by any other name means no one else knows you are talking about a rose.