"A lot more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year, than were killed by terrorists on 9/11. In 2001 (to choose the 9/11 year as an example), 17,448 people died in alcohol-related vehicle accidents, and 33% of those (about 5,800 or almost twice as many as killed by the 9/11 attacks) were not intoxicated themselves. Apparently you are willing to dismiss the seriousness of this, on the grounds that the majority of drunk drivers in a given year don't manage to kill anyone (though many cause serious/permanent injury and/or major property damage, even when they don't kill)."
---No, straw man. I'm just not willing to demagogue the way so many here are about lowering the BAC to infinitesimal numbers that will make no difference in the actual number of dangerous drunks on the road, and have little impact on those oh-so-impressive numbers you're tossing around.
"By the same theory, we shouldn't worry at all about the thousands of Muslim men in this country who are enthusiastically attending religious services and lessons where they're brainwashed about the supposed glory of committing homicide bombings or other forms of terrorism, since the vast majority of them won't ever get around to actually doing it."
---No, we should do something to stop both of them. TSA nail clipper searches and BAC drops won't do squat.
"I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern."
---I guess you'd probably be for stopping 16-year-olds from driving, then. But the point is not that drunks should drive or be allowed to drive--it's that laws should not be passed for purposes of simply looking tough on crime. Laws, if they are intended to stop drunk driving, ought to have that as their primary effect, instead of the primary effect of running bar owners into the ground.
I can think of a lot of good reasons to stop letting 16 year olds drive, and accidents are just one.