Its like that "Zero Tolerance" bullshit in schools. While airsoft guns are not harmless (you can hurt and/or injure people, if you aren't careful), they're still toys. Your chance of being killed by one, while non-zero, is well below the threshold of significance. But, they resemble real guns and are, therefore, frightening. Probably because they view them as a "gateway weapon" to actual guns, something anyone with a brain can tell you is slippery slope bullshit. This would be funny if it weren't so depressingly pathetic.
You know, just to chime in on this zero-tolerance thing, it really is a fault of the gun lobby. In response to just about every mass shooting, the gun lobby turns around and, ad hoc, says "look at these signs." Parents, angered at losing a kid, sue the school for then ignoring those signs, and it often settles for 6 or 7 figures.
So, now schools knowing that a shooting could open them to liability if any sign goes ignored, must now implement this level of zero-tolerance. For example, a few years ago, a kid bit his pizza to resemble a gun and "shot" a kid with it. Yes, in and of itself it is harmless. However, lets say that same kid brought a real gun to school the next day and shot people. Then, because the after the fact nature, that example with the pizza would be presented as evidence that the school knew of his dangerous proclivities and chose to ignore. The reason that zero tolerance exists is to minimize legal liability should a real school shooting actually happen, not to simply adopt an irrational position out of some hatred towards firearms.
And this speaks nothing to Australia. Though, ironically, I recall a few years ago during the infamous gun debates, that a few posters argued that slingshots and airsoft guns are just as lethal as real guns, which would easily justify this law. But, aside from that comical recollection, I have no opinion on Australia.
Aye, but its also a fault of the American love for litigation. If you have any grievance, no matter how small-minded or petty, you can sue for it. Break your arm whilst robbing someone's house? Sue the homeowner! Here in God's Own Eagle-Blessed Country, the default reaction to almost every problem one has with another person is to drag 'em into court. Get rid of pea-brained, money-grubbing bullshit like that, and we could fix an awful lot of problems in this ass-backwards country.
Love for litigation is also a bit incorrect as it glosses over all the facts. First, the only entity that can really be sued anymore is the school, creating even more incentive for zero tolerance. You can't blame the lawyers as just about all lawyers in this area work on a contingent fee basis. So, if the plaintiff/client doesn't win, the lawyer gets no money, which does away with a great deal of suits lacking merit, as the lawyers have other cases that are more valuable than a frivolous suit. But, the lawyer/client cannot sue gun manufacturers or gun show* and the shooter's family is more than likely judgment proof.** The only entity left is the school, and parents have a valid case as their child just died, often times due to the school's omissions in handling the shooter before hand. So, in response, the other schools nip any mention or gun-related action, however stupid, in the bud well in advance so as not to open itself up to liability. While not the most prudent way to go about things, zero-tolerance is a result of plenty of different factors at work necessitating it. The best way to get rid of it would be for the gun lobby to just admit that guns do contribute to mass shootings, which evidence shows. This would allow schools to focus more on guns by would-be criminals, and less on jokes by 6-year olds with pizza. Removing gun show and gun manufacturer immunity would also be another good idea, as some of those suits would shift to other parties who are negligent. Finally, if the gun lobby would cease ad hoc pointing the finger everywhere else, then schools wouldn't have to worry as much about whether they should've known.
Now, I will disagree with your assertion that America is sue-happy, and a lot of it comes from distortions proposed by pro-tort reform groups (for example, the McDonald's hot coffee case in which McDonald's knew it's coffee was too hot, had 700 complaints of injury in the prior year alone, continued to make it too hot intentionally, and ultimately led to the old woman dying). From my experience working at a plaintiff's firm and for a federal court, those cases are by far the exception, and yet they are made the norm by a media and a lobby that wants to restrict how much you can win against Crest if their toothpaste makes your teeth fall out.
*Due to the federal immunity law for gun manufacturers and gun shows. In fact, there was a case from Ohio a few years ago. Kid stole two guns from a gun show and shot a couple of kids at his school. Parents sued both the gun show and the school district. Gun show was granted summary judgment under the federal immunity statute even though the individual dealer was clearly negligent and had a history of having his guns stolen and used in various crimes. Gun show was also awarded attorney fees since the suit was "frivolous" as the gun show had immunity from suit, in spite of its obviously reckless omissions.
** The median household wealth for a white family is about $200,000. However, under judgment creditor laws, which do vary state to state but have some basic commonalities, the house is usually excludable from a judgment creditor, as is furniture, one car up to $5000, a radio, a tv, jewelry, books, and clothing. So, at the end of the day, you'd be lucky to get $20,000 from suing the family.