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

Sorry, but the Air Force just has a totally different mentality sometimes. When I was in Task Force Hawk in Albania in 1999, we had the combat operation on one side of the airfield. Full battle rattle, ammo issued, no saluting, the whole deal.
On the other side of the airfield, was the "humanitarian" mission with the Air Force. Those folks were literally running around in sneakers, shorts and t-shirts and were not worried for their safety because "we are the humanitarian mission, nobody wants to hurt us."
What?! The security forces for the Air Force were there in their armored Humvees, and were actually pointing their weapons at us as we arrived on the airfield.
Sometimes, you just can't relate!

It's not only the Air Force, I have seen this in the Army also. There is a video going around social media of an NCO in the reserves that has issues at a range. Her excuse is the she is a reservist. That is what normally follows with lack of soldiering skills is an excuse why they are not up to par.

Has it changed? When did it change? I had to qualify with the M-1 Carbine in Basic, last flight to use the M-1; everyone after that used the M-16. I had to qualify every year after Basic with the M-16, fired Expert every time. During the Vietnam War, I had a defensive position assigned at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base next to my shop. They kept our weapons and ammo in a conex parked next to our building. We would have had to line up to get our gear issued if we had been attacked. But it was planned that we WOULD defend ourselves.

I was a boom and we carried 9's and was expert on both the 9 and 16 but my job was to refuel planes that came up to our ass for a lil gas and when deployed we had armed guards go with us when we went off base so really no need for it but damn I felt better havin my 9 when we did. I agree with you though, more training and carrying needs to go on

I agree completely. Any argument against it, especially from the laughable CATM types, ignores the fact that this is how the Marine Corps operate. FYI, they maintain and operate fighter aircraft while having to remain proficient with a rifle. The concept of Air Force personnel being "in the rear with the gear" ignores the reality of modern warfare.

“ The internal defense of USAF bases and the survival of downed aircrew members may be dependent upon individual proficiency with assigned firearms. All Air Force personnel have defense responsibilities against overt and covert enemy action. To discharge these responsibilities, the fundamental military concept of competency with firearms must be reinstated within the Air Force. ”
— General Curtis E. LeMay
From the man who started CATM/SAMTU........

Prepping for deployment in 03' we were told, in no way, shape, or form, were we allowed to prepare our vehicles with field expedient gun mounts, up armoring, or any other modifications that might have increased survivability.
My platoon took it upon themselves to acquire the necessary material to construct such devices and waited until we arrived in theater to deploy/employ them. Nobody cared at that point, but many in the rest of the battalion were wondering why we were issued such equipment and they weren't. Then they were rooting around through the dump looking for anything to improve their situation.

Including not being able to modify our equipment, we weren't allowed to train in a manner that would have better prepared us for combat. No familiarization with MA2 or the Mark 19. My platoon requested MOUT training. We requested live fire exercises from a moving vehicle. Denied, denied, denied.
We were Engineers, Combat Heavy. We were there for construction, not fighting (SMH). So, the majority of my company were awarded CABs (including myself) not that many of you care.

You guys with rank saying it's not your job, we don't have the money to train you, there are measures in place so you don't have to worry about that sort of thing, I think it's time to get your head out of your fifth point of contact and realize that there is a war going on. And like all the kids in T-ball, everybody plays, everybody gets to bat. With all that in mind, you should be proficient at your job as well.

Only if you could guarantee that you'd never be under enemy fire, otherwise it makes sense to be trained in basic weapons usage. In today's climate I'd say better safe than sorry.

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this. I had to qualify on M-16 in basic. I again had to qualify prior to each deployment to Southeast Asia along with qualifying on the .38 (old school) and the venerable 1911, .45ACP. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the every man a rifleman first mentality, It is definitely headed that direction. Yes, you should know the business end and how to load the damn thing. I have read where the combat controllers and combat weather are embedding with Army SF and other units. I do agree that USAF should be as well trained and as fit as the other branches.

I agree that all Military personnel should be capable of handling basic organic weapon systems and some crew served weapons. I think the Air Force may see training money spent in a different fashion. Just my impression. Every Seabee is trained on weapons, defense tactics and some offensive tactics. Our Military Training is overseen, directed and instructed by the USMC.