They're called shotguns because they fire "shot", not bullets.
Well actually they could fire slugs too but those won't be much use against a bird/drone.
Shotgun - Wikipedia
Handgun bullets have been shown not to possess sufficient energy to hurt anyone when falling from altitude. Moreso the tumbly little NATO bullets of which that Register article speaks when fired seventy degrees up over the horizon. Unless of course someone's looking up at just the right moment and it puts their eye out. Slugs though, could weigh up to around an ounce so those could injure someone on the way down.
Thanks to Capposteve for the Register article. I like it mostly for teaching me "embuggerance". I already knew faff from my relatives north o' the border. And, well, who doesn't know plod by now...
I know nothing about the laws east of the Atlantic but it seems odd that certain branches of law enforcement - especially in this day of epic paranoia where we here in the 'States have to take our shoes off just to walk into a federal building - would not already have in place regulatory exemptions for jamming gear. And who gives a rat's rear if a drone dings someone's roofing or patio.
I hope at least this kerfluffle might wind up getting the authorities to come up with cohesive plans for addressing the menaces.
Stop with this nonsense -- a 230gn 45ACP slug falling at 'free-fall' or about 200mph+ (faster than a human would fall due to density/drag ratio) would most certainly hurt someone though the odds of it killing someone is very low. Ask yourself this: would you want someone to hit you in the head with a dense metallic object weighing 15 grams and twice as fast as Nolen Ryan could throw a fastball? Please stop posting nonsense.
Brian