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

Your assumption is quite incorrect and kind of childish. In 1965 I was to be drafted. when I was told my number was up, I enlisted in the the Air Force to avoid the Army. The last year of my tour of duty I received Orders for Vietnam. I was sent to California for 2 days of M16 Training. Being a farm boy from Kentucky, I had plenty of experience using a weapon. I qualified as Marksman at the end of that training. We each had a purpose in the mission. I was an Air Traffic Controller. The Army and Moraines had another. Ummmmm, That's why I joined the USAF.

I think it's important for ALL members of the armed forces to be familiar with at LEAST the standard battle rifle we use. They should know how to load/unload it, safe it, aim and fire it, and perform immediate action should it jam. I do not expect an airman or sailor to be able to perform a movement to contact or conduct a hasty ambush. If someone in a traditionally non-combat field gets deployed, they should then be trained on the skills they may need while in country. That includes more combat training as well as first aid.

SSgt Christ.
I agree with u...well 2 a point! I was at Minot then Torrejon as a Medic & EMT. I asked that question way back when in '73! The powers that B were trying Medics 2 parachute 2 downed F4 pilots, treat their wounds and get them out of dodge! In HS I was on tRifle team so when I went 2 Live fire in basic the firing line Sgt told e that I should b an SP with my abilities!! I told him that I would need 2 protect my patient!
He could NOT believe that I got 100 out of 100! He asked my TI if I could b brought back the next day 4 a 'Special' circumstance situation on the firing line? Ti said Ok. The next day the TI brought back the entire flight nobody was on the firing line but ME! I GOT 97 out of 100! On a crappies M16 than the day b4, the firing line Sgt and my TI both tried hard 2 push me in2 the SPs I said Nope! But I think ALL MEDICS NEED 2 B PROFICIENT with a Glock and whatever Rifle that the AF is using at the time so the Medics can Protect themselves & their patient/s!

I was enlisted infantry and got a commission in the navy. It was quite a surprise how the navy doesn't qualify sailors. Topside watch standers are carrying loaded 45s and shotguns and have never qualified anything. I agree that there should be a standard all military should be required to meet. But it isn't that way.

And you're not qualified to work on the Avionics systems on an F-16. This is outrageous!

If you are in the military, you should be trained and qualified in the current small arms inventory. If you deploy to a combat zone, our foe does not care if you are a clerk, cook, or infantry. All they know is that you are the enemy and they plan to kill you. Matter of fact training on the various AK variants would be advisable. I was in the Army Security Agency 1965-1968. I never was trained on an M16. Only on the M14. Lucky I never needed one in 'Nam.

USAF doesn't keep enough arms on hand at its bases to arm everyone stationed there. USAF SF usually don't number more than 400 personnel to cover three shifts a day, protect the base quarters, the flightline and very sensitive areas. Annual weapons training is conducted f I r tho a e career fields that be deemed as augments for security of the base. Career fields such as Combat Controllers, Pararescue and such, who will be in combat situations are prone to need small arms daily. Also thanks to the powers that be, their budget constraints won't allow USAF enough small arms/ammo, to arms all USAF personnel.

I would’ve loved training after having received an expert marksmanship ribbon! I wondered why I hadn’t been offered that! As a matter of fact, after the first time I was taken out to shoot, one guy and I had to go to a different range to shoot again. I asked why. The guy said because I shot like an expert and they needed to find out if that was correct!
After my score was checked the second time I asked, “how did I do?”
I was excited to appear an expert shooting an M-16. But thereafter I was never trained in anything about guns!

I served when SP was divided into Law Enforcement and Security. Security had responsibility for flight line and missiles.

Law Enforcement (white hats) had normal police functions plus Air Base Defince.

I had one base commander say we were his QRF team along with the SAT team.

Every Airman had M16 training during basic but only a few AFSC’s had annual qualification requirement.

LE on the other had had to qualify with M16 and .38 cal revolver. We also got shotgun familiarization and M79 / 203. Those headed to VN received M60 claymore, hand grenadine and demolition training. Most also got 1911 .45 cal.

The AF doctrine at my time 72-76 was since the 52’s were in Tiland only minimal stateside type security was necessarily. The TI Rangers and other combat units were detailed to protect all was good.

In county AB had SF and Army protection with SF LE inside the gate doing normal police functions and augmented any disturbances.

Everything changed after 911. SECURITY FORCES combined the two groups and equiped them for a front line combat role.

My understanding is all AF members receive proper weapons training and depending on assignment and location,, the equipment necessary.

Short answer, they should, without question. I started in my career in the Air Force as a Security Forces member, security police when I started, and was an instructor in CATM. I have seen many different ways to really screw up a qualification class / annual requirement session. The SMSGT is correct in that most AFSC's don't carry or handle weapons in their daily duties, it they who are the annual qualifiers I speak of, and honestly should be quarterly at the very least. I spent 6 years in the AF and then migrated to the Army as an MP, and many other things, and even in my many MOS's in the Army, I was always carrying a weapon of some sort, so the comparison is a bit off in a way, but accurate that the AF was not meant to be a ground defense force overall. In the Army if a base or FOB in a combat area is overrun, everyone will have a weapon in their hands. Our cooks were the primary support in such a case and were trained on crew served weapons, i.e. M-60's, M249's, and even Ma Deuce, the M2 Browning 50 caliber, so therein shows some differences in mission requirements. While in CATM I experienced the things SSG Christ has mentioned, and more. I think in the AF the annual personnel are just not interested in firearms training or firearms at all maybe, and when they have to return for their qualification time, it almost like you are starting at square one with them, every single time. I don't wish to sound harsh in that respect as I said some of them are simple not interested in this duty / requirement. So having seen tow sides of the house I do agree that all service members should be required to be more familiar and more proficient in weapons marksmanship, but that won't
change any time soon. Additional note; In the Army as well as what is saw in the AF, all members are instructors so to speak. You always train your teams members and they in turn train others as in the new guys, or maybe those who are weak in a certain task. This was true in the AF, I just saw it more in the Army on an overall basis.