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

Personally I believe that every service member should be qualified on a rifle and a pistol. As we have seen since 9/11 service members have been called to do things outside of their primary job. Who would have ever thought that we would have Air Force guys running ground convoys, but we did. This took Air Force guys outside the wire and put them in the line of fire. The environment of the military these days is a joint environment. Each branch has their own specialty but there are some jobs during a time of war that anybody in the DoD should be able to do, including defending the base with standard weaponry (M-4/M-16). At smaller operating locations they rely on everyone in the camp to defend it if they are attacked. This was the case of a recent deployment I had with a special operations unit. We had our own SOF security team that was in charge of our personel and equipment. There was a conventional Air Force Security Forces element there that for the U.S. compound and the conventional Air Force element there, which was about 3 times the size of our unit. If the compound was attacked the conventional Air Force plan was for all of their personel to man additional posts along the compound walls. This would include personel such as cooks who rarely touch a weapon, at least for the Air Force. Our unit had our own contingency plan and weapons for an attack because our unit was designed to self sufficient if need be. If we were attacked I would take a rifle, that I'm not currently qualified on but know how to use, in order to defend myself and my teammates. In my time on Active Duty I have only had the opportunity to qualify on the M-4 once, which wasn't for my deployment. I had to qualify on the M-4 while I worked as an augmentee for the Security Forces on my base. During the qualification there were 2 negligent discharges, both from Security Forces reservist. She was a MSgt (E-7) and had been a cop in both the Navy and Air Force but obviously wasn't fully competent with her primary weapons. During my most recent qualification, which was only on the M-9, there was a MSgt who hadn't fired a weapon since she was at boot camp. By this time in a military career you should be an expert with a weapon. Although I personally feel comfortable with weapons, I don't feel comfortable with the amount of time I get with the weapons that I am expected to use in combat. I think in order to solve this, the DoD will have to make a minimum standard for all service members that the services will have to follow. These joint standards would enable the DoD to use any service member to fill critical billets in a time of war. Regardless of our job in the military, the public views us as war fighters, which we should be trained to be.

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.

One last thing. In the picture above, that is not an AF Weapon. Wrong handguards, the sling swivle is in the wrong place, and it is the wrong sling for the M4.

Also, The rounds are civilian.

Remember windage and elevation.

I can't speak to the current USAF situation regarding firearms training, only during my career. As an RN and then a Nurse Anesthetist, I was on mobility teams, except during my time stationed in the UK. I was required to be qualified on the handgun in use at the time. I qualified on both the 38 revolver and the 9mm Berretta. Additionally, I was able to take an enlisted spot, if there was an opening, and qualify on the M-16.
Our enlisted personnel on mobility qualified with the M-16, the officers with a handgun. Even then I believed that officers should also be qualified on the M-16. The purpose of our being qualified was for the protection of ourselves and our patients in a combat zone, not perimeter security. That was to be provided by our security forces, as it was explained to me.

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.