Law

As someone that doesn't brew, distill, etc. at home at all and has only done a little research... It looks like it is, but only in the sense that like a pressure cooker is more dangerous than other cooking methods type of difference.

Brewing can result in exploding bottles if not done correctly due to fermentation. Distilling has steps involving higher pressures as well, they are just higher pressures kind of like a pressure cooker.

Fermentation can create very dangerous microbes/bacteria that are deadly if done incorrectly, but fermenting things at home is legal, both alcoholic and not.

Danger isn't why the DOJ is justifying the ban though either way, they're not saying it's banned because it's more dangerous, they're citing taxes. And the tax reasons were removed for brewing in 1978, with a law that was not originally intended for alcohol at all, just as general excise tax changes. The focus on alcohol was due to advocates lobbying for home brewing.

Not really, a lot of the "you will go blind" stuff is a myth.

What's danger got to do with the argument about taxes?

Nowhere does DOJ present a danger argument. Even then, I'm not sure where they would have an argument.

Home canning is dangerous as fuck, mitigated by regulation to make canners have a fail-safe design.

Theoretically, yes, distilling is more dangerous than brewing. However, it is not more dangerous than, say, canning, deep frying, welding, operating a weed burner, or any number of other tasks a DIYer might do around the house and garage. If you can operate a pressure cooker, an oil lamp, and plumb a gas water heater, you can probably operate a still.