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

Too right. Maintainer here & my last deployment was to a fob with only af personnel. Needless to say we came under fire & I was headed straight to an armory. One of my supervisors asked where I was heading & i told him. He said no, everyone heads to the "bunkers" and wait for the all clear. I thought it was so backwards...

What will happen to the AF if the Army or Marines defending them are overrun? And the SF is overrun? Y'all are gonna be toast.

I agree. When I was in I got to shoot maybe once every three years. I felt like we were just checking a "readiness" box too. I am figured AF brass was more concerned about keeping planes flying than making sure some medical guy had a decent grouping. Good thing there are plenty of us that own a private collection.

When I went trough basic training (in 1983!) , we had one day of weapons training, with an M-16 sleeved down to a 22 LR round. I got off of active duty in Dec 92, having NEVER fired again after BMT. I joined the Idaho ANG in October of 2000, and retired in Oct of 12. During my guard time, I was able to qualify and deploy several more times. I acquired 6 more years AD in that 12 year stretch. As a 605/2T2 I was in arming group B, having to qualify at least every two years. Lots of truth in several of the previous comments, some decent humor as well. When I was in Djibouti in 2011 the Navy said they had some extra rounds, and so I was allowed to go shooting with them..The funny part of this story, is that my dad had been in the Army back in like 62, and was awarded a marksman award. So of course I wanted one very badly! I always missed the AF qual by one or two rounds, every time I would go fire. So with the Navy, I was able to meet the requirement for a Navy marksman ribbon. Now, if you can still read the guidance, it quite clearly says that ANG members, who are TDY with the Navy and meet the Navy qualification, are PROHIBITED from wearing the Navy ribbon! To the original post, it comes down to a coupe of points. #1, it takes time and money to spend that brass. And of course nobody wants to spend that AF squadron level budget dollar on shooting. It also has a very negative PC point, in that while we are all supposed to be trained, willing and able to do our duty, the powers that be, do not want any more people than necessary, after military service, to be trained, willing and able to kill the "new" enemy. The drunk neighbor, the overly aggressive soccer coach, or pick a bad person. Sorry to be so chatty....

Have you ever seen them on the range, it is scary.

everyone needs to know how to fire a weapon That does not mean they haft to be good at it But you got to know how to defend your self if forced to

As a flight engineer during Nam, I was required to be fully qualified on the M-16 and the .38 pistol (every day carry for flight crews in my outfit). During my AF career I also qualified on the M-1 (Yes, youngsters that's a real weapon), AR 14, AR15, .45, and various other weapons, some courtesy of US Army courses and instructors. I understand the reasoning behind AF Brass saying that not every Airman today needs to be weapon qualified, but ask the clerks and cooks and admin types at Danang and other places in Nam during TET 68, what THEY think of the idea! An Airman who can't defend himself and his fellow Airmen is really only partially trained and unable to do the basic job of defending his fellow Airman and his Airbase. If you can't qualify on the basis issued weapon(s) what good are you?

When we went to Vietnam I had to go to Hamilton AFB, Ca for a refresher course on various weapons including grenades. This was in 1967.

Agree completely.

Nowadays you need to be a fully qualified rifleman just to be a civilian. With that said, shouldn't all branches of the military be proficient with small arms? What happens when the last plane leaves and you're not on it??. Fight back or surrender are about the only options.