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

Cause the airforce has adopted more of a quasi corporate military culture.

The Air Force may never have been intended as a ground force, but as we face a dual-threat of insurgency/terror and high tech warfare, the front lines are becoming blurred. In Iraq we ran convoys, bases were attacked and a threat was always there. We don't have to be trained to fight as the Army or Marines, but we should be proficient in using our weapons. Should we wait until a 3 or 4 or 5 man terrorist squad infiltrates one of our bases and runs around shooting defenseless Airman? It will be too late to conduct training then.

Well Sergeant, I commend your enthusiasm, but I think you have a few points wrong. And I'm speaking to you as a former Security Forces member, more specifically as what used to be called a security specialist.

I don't disagree with you about the need for weapons skills. However, there are reasons....

First, there are those career fields in the Air Force -- mostly medical -- where carrying a weapon violates the Geneva Convention and probably an assortment of other treaties.

Second, in my era of the Air Force, individuals in basic training usually went through familiarization, a dry fire simulation and then "wet fire" where they could have earned the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon while still in basic training. Did you know that unlike other services, the Air Force SMEMR is permanent? Then, as I remember, you returned to the range at annually to requalify on the AR-15/M-16 or in my case the M-15 or S&W Combat Masterpiece. If you qualified as expert, you didn't have to return for 24 months unless you chose to.

The number of times I personally returned to the range over the course of my career seemed a lot more frequent because I was also qualified on the M-60 and was once was assigned to an Alpha unit of the original Rapid Deployment Force. The tempo in which I returned to the range, or did my time in a chemical warfare ensemble, seemed more to deal with worldwide deployment status than anything else. The airmen beside me on the range also seemed to represent a variety of support AFSCs with the same deployment status and were not just battlefield airmen.

Therefore, the issue may not be the lack of training. In my era, you could go to Combat Arms and sign up for requalification and be issued a rounds and a weapon to fire. The last time I qualified was just before Desert Storm and I was serving a special duty tour as a recruiter. That last weapon that I fired in service was the M-9, which is the only weapon I chose to pursue post Air Force.

I agree with You,they should be taught to defend themselves and U.S.grounds and equipment.

I fully agree. Every Marine, Navy and Army personnel must qualify with their assigned weapon and more in most instances. All military personnel are supposed to be able to defend their post and our Country.

Yes, It could happen that an airman gets himself in a bind were using a rifle would be needed. Having said that, Airmen that have a highrisk of being behind enemy lines are almost always sent through SERE and the likes.
Now, lets say an enemy pulls some sort of Blitzkreig and encounters an AF base... well, almost every airman would be either trying to operate the base and try to get air superiority ASAP and admins could very well be trying to destroy every single piece of intel. The AF is not a ground force.
Although I agree maybe they should get some very basic rifle handling but nor much more than maybe one class.
the blietzkreig is a once in a 1000 scenario, and I bet you if a scenario like that were to be even likely, Army units would be placed protecting the AF bases.
Hell, In a worst scenario, I bet you they'd try to get every plane on the air, destroy what it cant be get running, and evac everyone after intel is destroyed.

Retired Air Force here, and I agree the weapons training program in the Air Force could stand some improvement. Rifle qualification is required as part of basic, but it is taught at the familiarization level. I served a tour in Vietnam and was issued an M-16 while there, and we had a class on the weapon before going overseas. I made it a point of becoming very familiar with my rifle and a .38 revolver I had been issued. Fortunately I never had to fire either of these in anger, but I was more comfortable knowing I was prepared in case the unexpected happened. I think all Air Force line personnel should have weapons training beyond basic training just to be a readier combat force, as well as to promote firearm safety.

As an Air Force Security Police (Forces) member I often wondered the same thing. Most member qualified during basic or officer training and then never picked up a rifle against except in some case having to qualify before rotation overseas.
Then again the Air Force has a different idea of ground force protection and that's where we came in.

Not true, back in 1956, in basic training, we were all expected and trained to be weapons qualified. As an aircrew member, we were also qualified in the 45. and 38 calibre pistols. Prior to deployment to Vietnam, we were qualified in the M-16 and the grenade launchers. All Base Security personnel were qualifed in the 50. calibre machine guns and other base defense weapons. Our tactical air control parties (tacp), COMBAT weather ground controllers, and our
Air Rescue personnel were all weapons qualified.
CMSgt, USAF Retired

I was AF Medic from 59 thru 64 and was required to qualify with M1 and M1 carbine. I shot expert. The only time I touched a weapon after that was as a member of the medical groups shooting team. I am disappointed to read your post but not surprised. If you are a member of any branch you should have to qualify with at least the basic weapons.