be a functioning handgun but was, in fact, a dismantled pellet gun. Orr’s argument rests on the purported contradiction between the definition of objects that appear to be but are not “dangerous weapons” in § 1B1.1 and in § 3B3.1. A pellet gun, while not a firearm, is by definition a “dangerous weapon.” § 1B1.1, Commentary, Application Note 1(e) (2001). Orr concedes that the dismantled pellet gun appeared to be a “dangerous weapon,” but contends that because it was dismantled, it was not so in fact. But a dismantled pellet gun is a dangerous weapon in its own right. In this connection, the government argues that even the frame of the pellet gun could inflict serious injury if wielded as a weapon. See McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16, 17-18, 106 S.Ct. 1677, 90 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986) (<HOLDING>). We agree and hold that a dismantled pellet
holding that because defendant possessed a screwdriver during the bank robbery and a screwdriver is properly classified as a dangerous weapon the district court did not err by applying the enhancement to him regarding ussg  2b31b2e which applies if a dangerous weapon was brandished displayed or possessed holding that escape driver with no prior knowledge that robbery would be armed is aider and abettor of aimed bank robbery if he knowingly and willfully joins in the escape phase of an armed bank robbery knowing that an accomplice has a gun holding that an unloaded gun used in the commission of an aggravated assault is a deadly weapon holding that an unloaded gun was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of the federal bank robbery statute partly due to potential harm when used as a bludgeon holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon