There is always a perfectly reasonable sounding justification people can dream up to justify a ban on just about anything.
Example: Cars kill tens of thousands a year. Car deaths are bad so ban Cars. While being completely one-sided at least this example provides an objective cost in lives lost due to vehicles.
The only thing worse than one-sided arguments is parading specific cases as "perfect examples" to justify a course of action regardless of relationship those cases have to larger reality... and of course all the while not considering the *cost* of action.
Every time there is an incident people are quick to "learn lessons" from individual incidents and push for legislation while interests of all are likely to be much better served if lawmakers made decisions based on rational objective criteria rather than legislation being the only answer to all knee jerk reactions to individual incidents.
Drones are politically easy to ban because they represent a niche hobby and many more people are afraid or annoyed of them. The people who have the most to lose have little voice and everyone else is indifferent.
Smoking causes far more fires and far more deaths than any possible swarm of consumer drones but outlawing smoking isn't going to happen because too many want to smoke.