Are we not making a basic error in thinking of a universally available (and priced) drone in the same terms as a commercial sized (and priced) helicopter, just because they both fly and occupy airspace?
Doesn't a small shift in head space provide some better perspective? For example; if I want to buy a gun, ANY gun (In Australia) I have to submit a licence application, wait a few weeks for the process, attend a course, pass a test and then register (attach myself) to the serial number of any subsequent guns I buy. If I go out with my gun and kill somebody I will be locked up. If I even frighten somebody with my gun there's a good chance that I will also get prosecuted, I will certainly have my gun and my licence confiscated.
I and many of my farming neighbours have guns for perfectly legitimate purposes but there is a universal respect for the fact that they are dangerous. Fathers teach their sons great respect for that danger at a very early age. The licence course reinforces that. Peers consistently reinforce it. Ignorance of those dangers is no defence when a gun is used irresponsibly. In other words there is an established and universal social culture, allied to harsh and unforgiving laws.
Shouldn't a drone (based on cost, size, availability and danger factor) be regarded, and therefore dealt with, as more like a gun than an aircraft?
In those terms where would the main danger still lie? ... autonomy. Would you ever licence, or even allowed to be sold, an autonomous gun. I don't think so!
Asking a cut-back aviation regulatory body to be responsible for policing drones (below a certain size) isn't ever going to work. But there are plenty of options available for restricting the sale, the purchase and the use of any commodity that has the potential to kill.