((Starting where I left off. And if my arguments seem to bore you just say so. I just love debates, and there aren’t any teams that will allow me. Plus most people do not like debates.))
River Song is not a flawless character but in order to see her character in true light you have to dig a little deeper. As you would anyone new you meet, they may not be upfront rude or they may seem perfect. I have met several people whom seemed nice and respectable. As I began to learn more about them and their actions on others they became tainted in my eyes. I saw them as a repulsive person their major flaws becoming a repelent to me unlike others finding it alright. It is fairly common.
Why does the pacifist Doctor approve of her gun slinging? He does not if you look closely. The first time you see her use a gun it is in “Silence in the Library” if I am not mistaken. They are clearly running for their life and the Doctor knows it is a squareness gun which can cause no physical harm. The next time she is seen using a gun in front of him is in “The Impossible Astronaut” where as he is dead. Then in “Day of the Moon” she is murdering the Silence. She only does this under his command. We have all seen the Doctor’s dark side before. When he is particulary angry he shows no remorse or mercy. The capture of Amy and manipulation of human kind have made the Doctor extremely angry. He may have seemed calm and collected but if you go back to his dialouge you can begin to hear his anger. As seen in “A Good Man Goes to War” he can be dangerous and loses sight of himself when angered. We next see her use a gun in front of him in “Let’s Kill Hitler”, we see him disarming all the guns in the room.
Her unusual birth and childhood. It is all a huge paradox that no one can temper with. I found that a particularly cheap writing, and yet it intrigued me. Her whole existance is a paradox or “spoiler.” She cannot do anything to control it. She is forced in a lock with time. We see her enter the Doctor’s life in the fourth season. But it reality this is not her choice. If she does not comply to the timeline she will either not exist, or simply destroy the universe. She is basically a slave to time, but she makes due with what she does have.
Her being part-timelord. I actually think Moffat had not intended this. Alex Kingston was casted first, and then Tennant left. Moffat had originally intended the next regeneration to be in the 40’s, to present a fatherly/gandfatherly character. Then Matt Smith stepped in playing out the Doctor so well (in staff’s opinion). Matt Smith having a large age difference would make the relationship difficult between the two characters. And he loved the way Alex Kingston acted. So to make it seem less weird between the two. Making her “a homemade timelord.” You can actually see evidence of this. (ex. In “Let’s Kill Hitler” she uselessly kills the Doctor to bring him back to life, making her mortal. Intending her to be mortal.) Then to not cause any complaints he had to have some arc of her childhood. If I had a baby timelord just out there to use for my own personal gain I would. Timelords have always be important (people wanting to use their regeneration for themselves, control of the TARDIS, etc). To see a timelord baby go off with no troubles while the Doctor also being a timelord encounters all these problems would make no sense. Moffat had to cover his tracks.
((I have some more thoughts but I don’t want to drag it on. So what are you thoughts on my arguments? :D ))