Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions at all.

For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas.

Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters.

So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."

Guns are only "low hanging fruit" if you ignore politics, which is nonsensical when talking about regulation. Passing a sensible drone regulation framework is pretty much trivial. Passing a sensible gun control framework would be a heroic effort requiring a leader with charisma and persuasion like we haven't seen in decades.

That gun control is such a hot-button political issue is why this is a bad comparison and why even mentioning it looks like an attempt to wreck the discussion.