Whikle I agree that some perspective is called for the worrying thing is that with all the publicity plus the law about not flying these things near airports some idiot just ignores the rules.
In UK if you buy a TV=same price or less than a medium sized heavier drone that could cause damage you have to supply name and address and of course thats easily linked to drone model and serial number.
Just that process that implies the authorities can chase down offenders would stop things to a degree as would making it clear that if you damaged an airliner or for that matter any aircraft through operating a UAV (yes I agree a drone is a silly name) in the vicinity of an airport is automatically culpable manslaughter with the likelyhood of 15 years inside might also focus the mind. Neither likely in UK where the civil service /poli/legal culture works on the basis of no ones died yet have they.
I don't agree its the same as a bird strike thats always going to be a random act of nature this kind of thing is a deliberate act of recklessness and as there are numerous places where a hard object could cause serious damage to plane it shouldn't be ignored on the basis that-its no worse than a bird strike. After ll there are decades of experience of bird strike damage and I imagine desingers and engineers have a lot of data to work with but not so with UAVs