Well, thank goodness for the licensing part of that statement. Law-abiding citizens having to get a license in order to possess, or purchase, a firearm is ridiculous on its face. Plus, in this case it wouldn't matter because it appears that the likely suspect owns a firearm.
And, yes, I know that some misguided jurisdictions place onerous restrictions on our rights - including drone bans! Fortunately, both types of infringements are rare. . . . For the time being!
As for the range of a .22 round, most .22 ammo boxes have a warning that states the range is a mile or more. That does not mean you can intentionally hit a moving object anywhere near as small as a drone with a .22, or most other firearms, for that matter, at that range. Regardless, lucky shots happen every day. The shooter probably never thought he'd hit the thing if the range really was 350 feet or more.
Additionally, as flimsy as drones are, recovering a projectile would be next to impossible as it would very likely pass right through.
Bullets are fired into the air daily. Some are legitimate (hunters, for example), some are not (drone shooters, celebrants, etc.) Occasionally, people or property are harmed when the round comes back to earth. Fortunately, that seems to be about as rare as meteorites or blue ice from airliners doing the same based on the infrequent reports of such events.
When I was a kid, I shot birds with a slingshot. Why? Certainly not because I was hungry. I suppose it was because they were challenging targets, because I was immature and because I could. The drone shooter likely suffers from those same characteristics. Problem is, he is likely to be far beyond childhood and should know better. Plus, drones don't eat berries and crap on cars!
