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

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.

When I first joined the military it was the National Guard in high school. Upon graduation, I went to Basic training at Fort Ord. It was Army basic, during my basic and AIT I qualified on the M-1 Garand and the BAR. When I joined the Air Force for some reason I was sent to Lackland, after I was there a week I was called into the Commander's office and told I was there by mistake and asked if I had ever qualified with the M-1 Carbine to which I answered I had not. So they placed me in a flight that was about to go to the rifle range to qualify. Upon qualifying, I was then shipped off to Tech School. after graduation from Tech school, I then had to qualify each year after that until 1970. For some reason, the next time I was sent to qualify was in the mid-1980s. Then it was with an M-16. That only occurred two times more during my career. My daughter only received introductory training in her ROTC training. However, when she was sent to Iraq, prior to her deployment she was sent to an Army base and provided training with the M-16 and sidearms. To my knowledge troops assigned to duty where they may encounter hostile activities are given training. Combat Communications is an example.

In my opinion everyone should be qualified to use the basic weapons platforms that are issued. One never knows what will happen in the future. My dad was a retired Senior Chief and when he went through boot camp Infantry weapons and small unit tactics were part of their training. Granted that was in 1949. Just an opinion from a former Airborne Grunt

From what I’ve been told that back in the day they did carry rifles. Korea and early Vietnam. It was under Gen Lemay that we ended up with the M-16.

being fully qualified on a M16 only I cannot speak for the other two mentioned but I could field strip and reassemble my weapon in the dark without any problem. never put a round in backwards was classified s expert marksman. but I was raised with weapons perhaps that was the difference. I agree the majority of any armed force should at least be trained in weapons but also agree not everyone should have one all the time.

As an aircraft mechanic who retired after 21 years I question efficiency of dedicating 1/3 of my working hours distain proficient in the rifle and other weapons that were used to protect the flightline yes I learn how to use a gun and the allocation had to but that was not my primary duty the rifleman in the army spends most of his time honing his skills the semen on the Navy does the same but they’re not the same skills everyone learns to march everybody going to salute. After that we all specialize it makes good sense to spend most of our time developing our skills in that specialty that doesn’t mean we don’t have secondary duties it just means that the secondary duties are not where our primary skills are