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).
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.
I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern.
"A lot more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year,...."
"17,448 people died in alcohol-related vehicle accidents,..."
Which is it? Drunken drivers or alcohol related? Why specifically change definitions in the middle of a claim?
I deal with matters related to traffic safety in the course of my work, so I can address this point with a certain level of professional credibility. The numbers you've quoted there are absolutely meaningless, and provide a clear illustration of why statistics can easily be twisted to convey a political message to support a political agenda.
If you look carefully at the methodology used by the NHTSA to estimate "alcohol-related accidents," you'll find that these statistics include many accidents in which alcohol may not (and in some case, absolutely DO NOT) have any causal influence at all. An "alcohol-related accident" is one in which one or more of the principals involved (driver, injured party, or fatality) is deemed to be under the influence of alcohol, regardless of whether the alcohol played any role in the accident -- and regardless of whether the person under the influence of alcohol was operating a motor vehicle.
Just consider these examples . . .
1. Suppose I go out with three friends of mine who all get drunk, and I drink nothing but club soda all night long because I have every intention of serving as the group's "designated driver" for the night. If I get in an accident on the way home (through my own fault, or otherwise) and one of my drunk passengers is injured or killed, the NHTSA considers this an "alcohol-related accident" even though none of the drunk people were driving the car.
2. If I'm driving home alone at night (totally sober) and I run over a drunken pedestrian who stumbled into the street in front of my car, the NHTSA considers this an "alcohol-related accident" even though the only person under the influence of alcohol was the pedestrian.
3. And here's the most nebulous case of all -- which is also the best argument against ever getting behind the wheel of a car with any alcohol in your system regardless of how alert and clear-minded you might be. If you are driving with a blood-alcohol level of around 0.06% and some incompetent (but sober) @sshole runs a red light and causes a serious accident, the NHTSA considers this an alcohol-related accident even if the sober driver was fully responsible for the accident. And the driver who blows the 0.06% on the breathalyzer in this case will likely be charged with driving under the influence, too.
"I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern."
I do too. Many of these folks would consider suicide bombings something to be concerned about and indeed that is a social custom in 'palestine'.
"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.