Only if it will achieve anything. Is is being continually pointed out - those people whom regulation would influence are ALREADY doing the right things and posing no danger to any other equally responsible aviator (I'm excluding the nutters you find in all fields of endevour who do things like buzz livestock at 100' in a microlight etc).
The people who might be a risk, eg those doing the long-distance BVR flights, won't give a dingo's kidney what some "regulation" says - they know the chances of them getting caught is pretty close to zero. They're also not necessarily the people who are buying these things as a commercial package. There is a huge hobby industry selling the components and full kits for home assembly, using flight control modules which can have whatever "restrictions" the builder doesn't like switched out. These suppliers are located in places that won't care about any regulation making it illegal to ship the stuff to the UK. There are websites full of open-source code for these things and lots of enthusiasts to assist in using/modifying it. So regulation is unlikely to achieve anything other than annoy legitimate (and non-risk) hobby RC flyers.
Airliners are demonstrably at far greater risk from wild birds than from drones, so if you want to do something USEFUL (rather than just bleating) perhaps you could start a campaign to have all woild birds fitted with kevlar tethers and 200lb concrete hold-downs. After all, it's the risk that's the issue and we can objectively show that this is a far, far greater risk.