“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”

Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn't I say "it's not perfect", I said it's completely stupid such as what's depicted in the illustration above. I also didn't say "no effort should be expended", in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.

This isn't a case of perfect being the enemy of good. This is a case of the drones simply not being a good response.

This assumes that there is a potential for harm reduction in this proposal...which there is not.