Those defending the fire flyers, why are you the way that you are?

I've had a number of conversations in these posts and on the DJI sub, with folks replying that "drone flyers should be allowed to fly there in the name of journalism" or got forbid "content creation" and other half reasoned answers. But it wasn't just one person. So my question is how do you not acknowledge the absolute danger that behavior causes. I say absolute because it's not implied. A firefighting plane was grounded due to a recreational drone that was not supposed to be flying.

And here's the thing: It's international news, and it's humungous, and it happened because someone decided "oh hey it's not that bad what could happen?" ... that.

Here's the case for MORE regulation and a higher bar to fly: we have seen that normal casual drone flyers can't be trusted to make safe decisions, i.e. a super scooper plane was punctured and grounded recently, hampering real fire suppressing activities. Drones are being flown over stadium events (edited for clarity) which are very clearly TFRs, 100% of the time. If they're stupid enough to fly there, they're stupid enough to not charge the battery - a dropped drone could kill a kid... I see content creators flagrantly posting video of restricted takeoffs and landings, flying in close proximity to airplanes, and flying over people and vehicles and hovering. These are all choices people are making... and they're horrible choices that are explicitly codified and regulated - because there is reams of evidence saying we need these regs: bird strikes, mid-air collisions, drone collisions, botched landings, etc.

So, given that drones aren't a god-given right, they're a tool, not free speech, they're not food, and if they go away tomorrow the world keeps turning, why do you think flying like this is OK? Because it's not. So let's hear it so we can educate you.

And a day later, this: https://www.reddit.com/r/drones/comments/1i0kwqh/flying_in_a_national_park/