Everybody that comes out on the side of diplomatically pointing out the error of their ways assumes that the offenders would have been reasonable people that would have listened to a more knowledgeable person.
On the other hand some of the people that advocate walking away without saying anything point out that this could have been a chemically assisted situation.
Here are my thoughts. This is not my problem. By walking away all I have lost is a day at the range. By stopping to talk to them about it the potential for something besides a nice chat increases. They are armed. You are armed. They are stupid. You can't go throwing yourself into every situation that may get someone you don't know hurt.
Would you go to your nearest interstate highway and try to stop traffic because somebody may get killed in a wreck later? What if your efforts to stop traffic cause a wreck that kills somebody? What if 20 tourists in motor-homes heading south for the winter turn you into a thin crust road pizza? A situation that was running as smoothly as possible with all things considered just went to heck because you interfered, not because you didn't.
We can sit here and play what if all day long and not get anywhere. The point is that apparently the two idiots survived their day at the range so it's no harm, no foul. Now it's up to the OP to realize that by retreating he caused no harm. They were doing it before he got there, and we can assume they continued after he left, but nobody got hurt. He also needs to consider that by interfering there is a chance that he could have made things worse instead of making them better.
