Gasoline is a weapon of war.
Here's the problem with that. Most people don't understand the psychology of concept formation. With any item there is the core usage and peripheral attributes. Folks say guns are tools and you can also kill with a pipe wrench.
However, the central attribute of a firearm is not a tool usage. It is as a weapon. There are some tangential uses of firearms as a tool. For example, some big shotguns that remove scale from blast furnances. But that's rare. The sporting uses are derivatives of lethal force training. Some of the lethal force applications were hunting but we've dealt with having control of hunting guns in a manner that voids the core of the 2A. However, much of the competition is lethally oriented, although some sporting organizations have tried to cover it up, as the use of octagonal pistol targets as compared to humanoid.
Thus, you cannot avoid the core concept of a firearm.
Now gasoline - it's core concept is as a fuel. Has it been used for war to fuel military vehicles - yes. Can it be made a gel for a flame thrower or bomb - yes. But that's not its prime usage. Like a car - you can mow down people as in Charlottesville or in Europe. But the core usage is travel and the lethal usage is a side effect. Fertilizer makes bombs and is now controlled to some extent.
A frying pan can be lethal - so what. That is a side effect.
Thus, again - trying to make a firearm nice by saying a side effect of another instrumentality is potentially lethal gets us nowhere in protecting the Constitutional usage.
Shooting a rodent or a target, running someone over - yep, happens - so what for this debate.