High-power lasers are dangerous and you certainly should not operate them if you don't know what you're doing, but they are not in the same ballpark as bullets from guns. And if we're talking strictly about legal jeopardy, IDK I'm not a lawyer but I imagine a prosecutor would have a hard time convincing a jury that a laser is as dangerous as a gun. Not saying it couldn't happen, but if I had to go to trial with one or the other I know what my preference would be.

They're usually high up enough that baseball bats would be tough, but they're an option for some situations. Lasers are nice because they're inexpensive(ish) and can be operated from a vehicle, e.g. just roll up on a bike, blast the sensor, and scram. There are other options, but if you have a high-power laser already and want to strike a blow for freedom, this is one way to do it.

Generally they're mounted high enough you can't hit them with a stick (totally sincere here: I am so curious where the idea that every american has a baseball bat came from. We don't, that's like assuming every canadian has a hockey stick). The best method of physically damaging them is just to loop a chain around them and pull them down then hit them with your standard-issue Size 2 Louisville Slugger. But that takes time and several people, so for a quick & clean takedown laser pointers are fairly effective.

That may be the stupidest justification for shooting a gun in the air that I've ever heard, and I have heard some doozies. The odds that you'll accidentally intersect an aircraft are astronomically low, and even if you do, it'll only be for a fraction of a second at most unless you are intentionally tracking the aircraft. To compare that to the danger of firing bullets in the air is absurd. If your best plan for disabling flock cameras is to shoot them with guns, please redirect your activism elsewhere because that is dangerously irresponsible.

What?! Lol. No man. Just no