It sort of bothers me when people use the term "fire" with anything that launches a projectile; you can't actually fire a spring-based weapon system like a crossbow. You can shoot one, but you can't actually fire it. The term "fire" doesn't just simply mean "shoot" when it comes with any sort of projectile based weaponry, it means "to shoot a firearm." Because a firearm basically works by fire, as the hammer hits the back of the bullet, causes an ignition which is the bang, and then the round is launched into the target. That's why they are called firearms, the practically work by fire, especially those matchlock rifles as you had to light a piece of string. When it comes to spring-based weapon systems like bows or crossbows, traditional or compound; it really doesn't matter, they don't work by causing a bang to launch the projectile. It's basically a string that's bent and locked at the back by either the hand or the latch--if that's what it's called--on a crossbow, and once that is released, the string springs itself and launches the projectile. So, they basically work via a springing mechanism.
Can you imagine ancient archers and crossbowmen using the term "fire"? I guarantee that cause a lot of confusion: "What, fire? There's a fire? There's a fire! Quick! Women and children! Get a bucket of sand; some water, hurry; the kingdom's on fire!" It's only in the modern age that we associate the term "fire" with anything that launches a projectile because that's what our modern troops use on today's battlefields. Well, of course they're going to say "fire"; they're dealing with FIREARMS!