Here's a better idea. Find something better to talk about than television shows.
Actually there are many things to talk about that don't suffer from this problem, Sport, Technology, Science, Politics - and if you must have something that is contrived by TV programme makers there is always reality shows.
Once they setup rules for the plebs then we might notice those how arn't following the rules. No rules, no domestic oversight!
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles. You may or may not regard the level of oversight as adequate - but it is far from "no rules" and it is not new.
The military have operated drones since the 1950s at least.
Generally speaking aviation authorities do not distinguish at the top level. Everything that flies is an aircraft. None of them are toys.
IF you drill down into the regulations that already exist at national level you will find that there are two key points. One is the weight, the other is whether the aircraft is always operated within direct line of sight of a pilot. For example in the UK regulation is very light touch for aircraft below 20kg operated in direct view. From 20kg-150kg regulation is done via approved hobbyist organisations to ensure that the airframe is sound.
The top end of this scale is represented bythis model. Still perfectly safe when operated as you see in the video, away from buildings, (uninvolved) people and man carrying aviation. (Bear in mind that there are man carrying aircraft that are smaller!).
Once you break the visual link between the aircraft and the operator, or operate over crowds etc then you are in a different category and new regulations are needed.
Even a "toy" quadcopter will hurt if it falls on your head from 200ft.
I am at a loss to understand why we need this level of surveillance to meet current threats when we did not need it to meet the threats from the Soviet Union, China under Mao and the IRA. The first two of these were far more powerful entities than any current group that threatens us and the third was a homegrown "under the radar" entity that was well hidden within its community and able to operate with impunity within its "territory".
What is is about the current sources of terrorism that is so special as to require this?
Since that cruel and evil attitude still exists, nuance is a very tricky thing.
But that makes it even more important to get it right. Get it wrong and you give your opponent a foothold in the argument.
If my action is to rape, burglarize, or commit any other offense against someone, then I am the only one who is responsible for that.
Morally yes - but there is more to it than that. In this particular case there are others to blame. It is the responsibility of the Indian government and of the local transport authority to ensure that it is safe for a woman to ride on a bus without this kind of thing happening.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the things that lie in their power to prevent these kind of events. Only blaming the immediate perpetrator is a recipe for perpetuating the problem.
Dostoevsky had it right when he said "We are all responsible for everyone else—but I am more responsible than all the others."
you are in no way at fault for being burglarized. Only the burglar is to blame for that.
Read my comment carefully. I already said that you are not morally at fauit. However that does not mean that your behaviour was sensible.
The underlying point is that blurring the distinction between moral and practical responsiblity is exactly what those who "blame the victim" are doing. When opposing their argument it is vitally important not to fall into the same error.
All those people who say that it's the victim's fault are guilty of something that is very close to rape as well.
Well, whilst I mostly agree with that, I think one has to be a little careful here. Leaving my house unlocked does not mean that I am in some way morally responsible for the ensuing burglary - but it may mean that I have been unwise not to lock it.
Having said that I would add that it shouldn't (in a civilised society) be even unwise simply to get on a bus.