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

The Army doesn't always teach that you are a rifleman first. Yes, we qual every year (as long as ammo is avail), but not everyone in the Army knows how to handle a weapon. Your picture reminds me of a time when I once witnessed (and I still don't know how she did it) a LTC Dietician somehow managed to put a magazine in an M-16 backwards. Not upside down, but backwards. After about 30 mins of tugging and shimmying, I finally got it out. She had it in there real snug.

A militarization course will train the troops how to get out a swarm of bumblebees. You don't want expert middlemen, you want suppressive fire.. until the Cavalry gets there.

If they were serious about defended you'd have machine guns.

I agree, I haven't had to zero a weapon in sometime but when I did with my personal weapon it wasn't too bad. If you think some of the comm guys were bad you should have seen some of the Intel guys I was in augmentee training. It was like they were completely scared to handle the M9 and the M4/M16. It was kind of scary to think that one day these troops might be in a position where they could have to return fire to save themselves or have our backs....

This goes back to another discussion here. The AF are not shooters, generally. They do have some shooters in them nothing on the scale of the Army and MC. It would just be a waste. In most cases there are Army and MC at the bases where AF are. A lot of their deployments aren't even to combat areas. I would recommend that all deploying Airmen going to an active war zone should be trained with an M4/M16. But if they are going Kuwait or UAE I wouldn't waste the resources.

The Airman should be able to be called up and defend the base or anything else that needs protecting. Period

Every service should include basic rifle/hand gun training and qualifications.

As far as the base getting overrun scenario, with one armory on base (USAF) and no weapons prior issue except to SP's, you couldn't distribute the weapons fast enough to prevent total annihilation of the base. "Who's got the keys? Where are the freakin' keys???". So I see weapons qualified as a moot point unless weapons issue is standard. Even the Ft. Hood tragedy shows that administrative control of weapons hinders an effective timely response.

I was an Air Force marksmanship instructor from June 1965 to November 1967, voluntarily cross trained from IBM Data Processing. I was involved in the introduction of the M-16 at Dover AFB in 1965. I realized Air Force was not meant to be a ground combat force, but I felt that all personnel should be familiar enough with basic defensive weapons to defend their base and keep each other alive. Viet Nam was ramping up, and you never knew if it would be your turn to go to a war zone. I was amazed that I would have personnel come to the range who had 10, 15, even 20+ years in service and had not handled a firearm since basic training, including a base commander and senior NCOs. APs were supposed to be qualified with a .38 revolver, M-16, and riot shotgun every six months. All flight crews were supposed to be qualified with a .38 revolver yearly. The quality of some ranges I worked on was one step away from non existent. On base at Dover was a 25 yard conversion of an old fighter plane zeroing pit for pistol shooting. For M-16 we had to travel to Ft Miles near Rehobeth Beach to use an old Army pit range. At Kadena Okinawa we had to drive up island to Onna Point, to a 25 yard corral sandpit backstop with 2x3 framing that held the targets. I'm glad to see that Air Force seems to be more serious about defensive firearms training and better range facilities.

Many of the other services poke fun at the USAF for being soft. If nothing else the Air Force should give weapons proficiency training to all troops deploying to any hostile theater. What will Air Force personnel do if militants get "inside the wire?" Fighting to survive is key in theater.

I grew up with weapons, so I qualified as expert with the M-16 AND 38.

During Vietnam there were times during the Tet Offensive when Air Force bases were attacked and it was all hands on board. I also have known some surviving Air Force Helicopter gunners whom are still appreciated by Army and Marine who were in combat and were happy when their helicopters arrived to withdraw ground troops.

I'm grateful for the skill sets of all our military. For example, some of the best mechanics in the world work on our aircraft, ships, etc. And, I appreciated those who provided security for these men (and today women). Could go on - but there is no need to do so.

I also spent 3 years attached to Army. I trained military officers from all of the military services.

In my final assignment, I became very especially appreciative of the Marines who provided security for us in Belgium. To take on that commitment, they couldn't be married and were prepared to sacrifice themselves for us.