Realistically, someone could 'go postal' at any time and place. (I'm old enough to remember a bunch of post office shootings in the 1980s, from whence I believe we get the term "going postal.") So that is not particularly relevant to a discussion of range policy. If there's no way to mitigate a risk, like someone shooting the place up, leave it be and live with it. Nothing else to do. On the other hand, reloads may (and I stress may) present some risks that can be mitigated. The range attorney's job is, in part, to advise the range on policies that can be enacted that will either: (a) mitigate the risk itself; or (b) mitigate something else that could result from it, like legal fees or the cost of defense.Only that we’re deciding whether to worry about reloaders at an inherently dangerous placeWhat, exactly, does that 'real risk' have to do with the fact that cost of defense is a factor to consider in a range setting up its policies?
You may consider banning reloads to be silly in light of the fact that the person next to me might be shooting a defective .50 AE pistol. That does not really have any effect on how the range policy might affect its cost of defense, silly or not.