Originally Posted by wildbill_hicock:
“I think it might be more complex than that - I get the impression that the most recent incarnations of the doctor aspire to non-violence, but don't always achieve this goal. Is it one of the rules the doctor needs because he isn't a good man?
As for the sentiment, I'm more than happy to be presented with an "action" hero that depends on wit and intelligence ahead of force and violence. Although, as I've suggested the Doctor doesn't always live up to this laudable ideal. How does everybody else feel concerning his gun policy?”
Uhuh,
I get all that and I can see the appeal of a hero who beats the baddie with guile and cunning rather than by filling them full of lead but it just bugs me the way he's quite happy to let others do the dirty work for him.
I can't recall them all off-hand but there's been a few recent episodes where the doctor seems to have been positively gleefull about the idea of one of his entourage shooting up the joint while, at the same time, maintaining this whole "anti gun" thing.
Stuff like the part where he confronts The Silence and cheerfully tells them that River Song could probably zap 6 or 7 of them. Great plan. Rely on others to shoot up the place for you and then lecture people about how bad guns are.
I don't mean to take this particularly seriously BTW. It's just one of those things that I've happened to notice.