Why don't all members of the Air Force have to be fully qualified to be a rifleman in case of hostile events?

You make a good point; however, their expertise is required to keep those air superiority and ground support aircraft operating to further the Commander's Objective.
During my time in the USAF, I was a Missile Electronics Technician (special weapons) and if the enemy forces got far enough in to threaten my crew then everyone was totally boned. This did not mean I wasn’t a good shot or could not handle the weapon, it just wasn’t my job. When I accepted a commission with the USN and became a Surface Warfare Officer my mission changed to indirect support, yet at the same time as Ship’s Security Forces Officer, it was important I could effectively handle firearms to protect my ship. Even later, when I was assigned shore duty as a Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer who deployed with Marines my proficiency became even more critical since I could be expected to operate as a Forward Observer. Although I qualified as an expert with both pistol and rifle, I felt the most comfortable during the short time assigned to the Marines. I also fired more rounds in qualification in those two short years than the combined range time over my 22 yrs career.

I agree with your sentiment, and I wish the Air Force would provide more frequent weapons training

I work in a hole in the ground. My SOPs are to turtle up, continue working, and wait to either be rescued or buried alive.

They may want to think about at least some training. As a Navy Corpsman. I made sure I was trained.

Just as an aircrew would not want an infantryman loading munitions or working on their Avionics. .... The infantry sure are glad those duties are completed by trained AF personell! I was essential to my warthog pilots, as their egress mechanic. But, being a country boy I also qualified expert with my M-16....

The last small arms class that I had, there was someone in it that hadn't fired a weapon in 10 years. As astonishing as it sounds, there are folks out there that will never be put in harms way to carry out their mission (Global reach). Don't try to put them in your shoes, put yourself in theirs.

Also, there were 9 guys in my flight in basic that didn't qualify on the range, all of them going to become SPs. If it was your job to teach those Comm troops how to operate an M-4, did you look at yourself first for fault?

I had a female medic at Bagram damn near take my head off at a clearing barrel outside the defac... She sent the BCG forward dropped the mag and the. Pulled it out off safe and attempted to pull the trigger pointed right at my face... Quick snack to the bottom of the barrel and a loud bang and she pissed herself with the craziest look ever.

All the aircrew and aircrew support personnel I know, to include aeromedical, have been required to be qualified on personal weapon in order to be on mobility/deployment status, and carry weapon full time in theater/AOR.

I agree totally. When I was in the Navy Bootcamp Sept 72, we trained with one "one" hour shoot with single shot .22 rifles like we had in the Boy Scouts. I had always wondered why a military branch did not train with weapons. Pearl Harbor showed that all branches need to be realistically trained in Combat scenarios because attacks can and have happened. At Pearl Harbor, a "Cook" was awarded the MOH because he took over an AA machine gun and defended his ship with it. In my opinion (which isn't worth much) all branches need to be trained to handle weapons.

I was actually really disappointed when we were told we would not be training with the M9. Still always qualified for M16 and M4. I have run across people that had to return to catm because they failed the M16 qualification for the 3rd time in a row.