But now it is you making the silly statements and, apparently, misunderstanding statistics and probability.
Firstly, no manned aircraft has been brought down that way because there have been no collisions yet. But there have been near misses and UAV availability and use is increasing, faster than linearly, and so it is untenable to assume that collisions won't happen in the future. Are you seriously arguing that it is not a problem just because it hasn't happened yet?
Since there have been no collisions, there are no data on the actual consequences. However, all knowledgeable assessments that I have seen agree that the consequences of such a collision at normal flight speeds could be very bad, depending on impact site. That's also consistent with my experience of high-speed impact experiments in a different, though related, field of study.
Any reasonable analysis based on those two observations will conclude that it is essential to air safety to avoid UAV/manned aircraft collisions.
Banning drones is almost certainly not the best solution, but strict regulation is the only realistic alternative. And the more that existing guidelines and rules are flouted by recreational flyers, the more strict the regulation is likely to be in the end.