Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get misconstrued, even if I&#x27;d made it well.)<p>People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm.<p>But threaten the &quot;right to arm bears&quot;, and from some corners all hell breaks loose.<p>How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there&#x27;s _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?