when delivering its charge on that offense. That instruction included the elements that defendant possessed a firearm and intended to use it to “endanger or threaten the life of [the victim].” However, in its charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, the trial court correctly instructed that robbery with a dangerous weapon is the taking of property from a person “while using a firearm,” but erroneously omitted the element that the weapon must have been used to endanger or threaten the life of the victim. The State concedes that the instruction was erroneous because the trial court should have set out all the elements of robbery with a dangerous weapon in that portion of the charge, according to State v. Gibbons, 303 N.C. 484, 489, 279 S.E.2d 574, 577-78 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The trial court repeated the erroneous
holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon holding that assault with dangerous weapon is general intent crime and that it is only necessary to prove that defendant did act of injuring another with dangerous instrument in intentional manner holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon 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