> isn't the risk of death a harm?

No. It's a risk. Death itself is a harm, but risk of harm is not the same as actual harm.

> Should it be legal for someone to take shots at you as long as they miss?

If they're taking shots at you with the intent of harming you, that's already a crime; in most jurisdictions it's called assault with a deadly weapon or something similar. The basis for such laws is that having someone intentionally shoot at you, even if they miss, is a harm in and of itself. But that theory does not generalize to any action that carries a risk of causing harm.

If they don't realize you're in the path of the shots and they miss, there is no crime, but there is certainly a very good reason to keep that person as far away from you as possible. And if everyone did that with people who do obviously reckless and dangerous things, those people would find it impossible to survive and would pay the price of their recklessness. I'd be fine with that.

> Why must society be doomed if it needs "nanny-state" laws to function?

Because if it actually needs nanny state laws to function, that means its citizens are not responsible adults. And a society whose citizens are not responsible adults is doomed.

> I agree it's a few.

If it's only a few, why is it a serious problem that requires nanny state laws to fix? Why can't all of us who are responsible adults just, as I said above, refuse to associate with the few who are not responsible adults? Oh, you want a drink at my bar (or my private party, or just hanging out with me)? Are you going to drive? Sorry, I can't give you a drink if you're going to drive. And so on.

In other words, a society in which all but a few people are responsible adults does not need nanny state laws for the few who are not, because everyone else, as responsible adults, will regulate the behavior of the non-responsible few anyway. Nanny state laws are only needed if many citizens are not responsible adults. But you've said you don't think that's the case. So why don't you, as (presumably) a responsible adult, just do what responsible adults are supposed to do when dealing with the few who aren't responsible?

> are laws against drunk driving highly targeted, impacting only the people who are driving drunk, getting them off the roads before they hurt someone?

I already described a scenario in which a cop does exactly this with a drunk driver who doesn't cause harm, without imposing any punishment. So your implicit assumption that the only way to get drunk drivers off the roads is to punish them for violating a nanny state law is incorrect. In other words, in my proposed scenario, the cop, a responsible adult, regulates the behavior of one of the few who is not responsible. He can do that without needing any nanny-state laws to justify it. His simple duty to keep the roads safe is enough. That duty already empowers him to get drunk drivers off the road. He can do that just fine without imposing any punishments.

> regulation preventing drunk driving abrogates a 'right' _they won't exercise_

In this particular case, perhaps. But giving the government power to enact such nanny state regulations will abrogate other rights that responsible adults will want to exercise. There is no such thing as a government that only imposes just those nanny state laws that are needed to restrain the irresponsible few and never imposes any that unjustifiably restrain the responsible many. I already gave one counterexample: speed limit laws. There are many others.