What's a dangerous weapon in D.C.?

Apparently, anything is, if so used in an assault. The "weapon" referred to in the linked-to George Washington University student newspaper article was a beer bottle (probably--the victim isn't sure, but is apparently convinced that it was a glass object), with which the victim was struck in the head.

Senior Isabella Bacardi was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon - a felony charge - at McFadden's Saloon Oct. 21. Bacardi is accused of hitting a 29-year-old Alexandria, Va., resident on the head with a glass object, a court document states.

[ . . . ]

Michelle Lindsay, the 29-year-old alleged victim, said she believes the glass object was a beer bottle but added she did not see it because of the angle of the reported incident.

While calling a beer bottle a "dangerous weapon" may sound a bit silly, I actually don't really have a problem with that. Beer bottles can be, and undoubtedly have been, used to kill, as have bikini tops, and for that matter, so have fists and feet. As those of us who fight against gun bans constantly point out, it's the evil and aggressive intent of the person using an implement that makes that implement dangerous, rather than the nature of the implement itself.

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the District's U.S. Attorney's office, elaborates:

Possession of a prohibited weapon is a charge added to an assault case to specify the weapon used in an attack, Phillips said.

"D.C. statute states anything that you use in a prohibited manner can be considered a prohibited weapon," he said. "Even a writing pen could be considered prohibited under certain circumstances."

They seem to take that "the pen is mightier than the sword" thing pretty seriously there, don't they?

How, though, do they reconcile that position with a handgun ban--a law that turns a peaceable citizen into a criminal, for merely having the audacity to maintain an efficient means of self-defense in the home? If a beer bottle is just a container until it's swung at someone's head, at which point it becomes a "prohibited weapon" (or if a pen is simply a writing instrument until it's stabbed into someone's eye, at which point it becomes a "prohibited weapon"), why isn't a handgun in the home simply part of the security arrangements, until it's used to harm an innocent victim?

Could the reason be that it's not very difficult for a tyrannical government to suppress a rebellion fought with beer bottles and pens?