Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Piers Morgan


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#61 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,913 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

Defending against a tyrannical regime is a lame argument. Maybe up until the mid-20th century it was valid, but if the US government went tyrannical, no amount of AR-15 assault rifles would stop them.
  • 0

#62 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

Defending against a tyrannical regime is a lame argument. Maybe up until the mid-20th century it was valid, but if the US government went tyrannical, no amount of AR-15 assault rifles would stop them.


I wouldn't be so sure: the U.S. couldn't win Guerilla wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taking on a (hypothetical) armed and determined American population would be a much harder task for the U.S. military.

However that is besides the point.
  • 0

#63 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:30 PM

I wouldn't be so sure: the U.S. couldn't win Guerilla wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taking on a (hypothetical) armed and determined American population would be a much harder task for the U.S. military.

However that is besides the point.


Agreed .. it would do wonders for their economy tho .. :emot-parrot:
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#64 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,819 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:52 PM

I'm sure the insurgents in Afghanistan are much more battle hardened, better equipped and have actual training as opposed to many gun advocates in the US. You know, I wonder how much actual combat experience and training Alex Jones has -- I'm going to say he has absolutely none. The insurgents, despite being savages, are a much formidable opponent. Then again the US could have left that country nothing more than a smoking crater if they really wanted to.
  • 0
Posted Image

#65 Truculence

Truculence

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,310 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:16 PM

Piers Morgan is a jackass.
Alex Jones is a jackass.
The NRA are all jackasses.
The American constitution is flawed and doesn't deserve half the obsessive respect it gets.

Next.
  • 0
Posted Image

#66 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

Piers Morgan is a jackass.
Alex Jones is a jackass.
The NRA are all jackasses.
The American constitution is flawed and doesn't deserve half the obsessive respect it gets.

Next.


4 for 4 .. next? .. why, :) we shall discuss the Vatican Archives ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#67 Truculence

Truculence

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,310 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:29 PM

4 for 4 .. next? .. why, :) we shall discuss the Vatican Archives ..


Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
  • 0
Posted Image

#68 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:31 PM

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


Ha ha ha .. beware "divine" intervention ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#69 Cooker

Cooker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 03

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

It's a sign of victory when they move onto the ad hominem.

And that is certainly the case in the online community; majority of advocates are morons that cannot argue their point intelligently so they blatantly attack Piers and hurl insults at the man.


Now I begin to wonder if you've ever even watched his show. Piers is the biggest proponent for the fallacy of ad hominem. Here is just one recent example.

http://youtu.be/Ub-paSZsbDE
  • 2

#70 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,547 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:15 AM

Defending against a tyrannical regime is a lame argument. Maybe up until the mid-20th century it was valid, but if the US government went tyrannical, no amount of AR-15 assault rifles would stop them.


here's the problem... asking americans to drop bombs on fellow americans.

probably the best way I can explain the "need" for the 2nd amendment (and I know it's not a great argument, especially against anyone that thinks it's useless) is by saying the 2nd amendment is there as the "fist" behind the 1st amendment (which is the most important of all the amendments.) Basically, if you try to take away the 1st... we'll use our 2nd to revolt against the government.

The problem is that in todays society people are too "closed" for open and civil discussion about the 2nd amendment. It's either; "you want all guns taken away if you want any kind of regulation" or "you want everyone to own a gun and carry it with them 24/7." The only time I've been able to have a real good discussion about this topic is with good friends on both sides of the issue who know and respect the other persons view on the matter.
  • 0

#71 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,819 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:18 AM

Now I begin to wonder if you've ever even watched his show. Piers is the biggest proponent for the fallacy of ad hominem. Here is just one recent example.

http://youtu.be/Ub-paSZsbDE


Then again Pratt asserts that laws, regulation and control won't work despite the contrary everywhere else in first world countries that have employed these exact measures. Piers isn't far off. Again, advocates would rather do NOTHING before doing something.
  • 0
Posted Image

#72 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,613 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:31 AM

Now I begin to wonder if you've ever even watched his show. Piers is the biggest proponent for the fallacy of ad hominem. Here is just one recent example.

http://youtu.be/Ub-paSZsbDE


LOL @ Piers' attitude and language. Sounds like a few bitter, elderly current (and former) members of CDC I can think of.
  • 2
Posted Image
le temps restitué

#73 Cooker

Cooker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 03

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:59 AM

Then again Pratt asserts that laws, regulation and control won't work despite the contrary everywhere else in first world countries that have employed these exact measures. Piers isn't far off. Again, advocates would rather do NOTHING before doing something.


Pratt actually asserts that the violent crime rate in the global north countries that have banned guns (read: Britain, Australia) have actually gone up as there is no fear instilled in criminals of a potentially armed victim. With lower populations than America, and higher violent crime (rape, assault, stabbings etc.) than America, it's concerning to see. Of course, Morgan dismisses it, calling it a lie, and finally resorts to ad hominem attacks. Totally unprofessional, don't know how he is a journalist still especially after the phone hacking scandal.

Edited by Cooker, 13 January 2013 - 02:00 AM.

  • 1

#74 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

I don't like Piers personally, but I like his show. It's hard not to call someone a ???? idiot when they think that it would be safer if everyone carried a gun.

Alex Jones.... frack I don't know where to begin.... I wish I could just push a button and him and all his douchey followers would disappear.

  • 0

#75 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:35 AM

Pratt actually asserts that the violent crime rate in the global north countries that have banned guns (read: Britain, Australia) have actually gone up as there is no fear instilled in criminals of a potentially armed victim. With lower populations than America, and higher violent crime (rape, assault, stabbings etc.) than America, it's concerning to see. Of course, Morgan dismisses it, calling it a lie, and finally resorts to ad hominem attacks. Totally unprofessional, don't know how he is a journalist still especially after the phone hacking scandal.


Uhh lol... UK and Australia don't have a higher violent crime rate than America.




  • 0

#76 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,819 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:03 AM

Pratt actually asserts that the violent crime rate in the global north countries that have banned guns (read: Britain, Australia) have actually gone up as there is no fear instilled in criminals of a potentially armed victim. With lower populations than America, and higher violent crime (rape, assault, stabbings etc.) than America, it's concerning to see. Of course, Morgan dismisses it, calling it a lie, and finally resorts to ad hominem attacks. Totally unprofessional, don't know how he is a journalist still especially after the phone hacking scandal.


Can Pratt clearly demonstrate that is the reason why there is a rise in violent crime rate? Or is he just blindly assuming that gun controlled nations therefore rise in violent crime.

Pratt is clearly off regarding the number of gun homicides in the UK. He's not even close - they're nowhere near 900+. So when Piers calls him a liar and an idiot, it's not exactly undeserved at this point. Pratt is either dishonest or ignorant on these numbers. If you have to lie to further your cause then you can't be overly confident in it, now can you? Since he has spent half the interview arguing Piers over these numbers which he is evidently wrong about, you have to question the validity of the rest of his statements which I will look into on the morrow.
  • 1
Posted Image

#77 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:52 AM

Trying to equate higher amounts of guns sold to a lower violent crime rate is insane. There is no correlation here beyond the skewed statistics of 2 recent riots in the UK. The fact that this clown is implying that by having a weapon, you are less likely to be attacked, further's his agenda of paranoia and fear. I am further disappointed in some CDC members that believe this nonsense.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#78 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:48 AM

LOL @ Piers' attitude and language. Sounds like a few bitter, elderly current (and former) members of CDC I can think of.

I'm pretty sure I know who you mean, and that's highly accurate :lol:

Thankfully there's more reasonable people who actually make decisions about the second amendment like SCOTUS rather than random prohibitionist gun caricaturing internet people.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#79 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:22 AM

CAUTION: BEWARE TROLLING TURDS



Warning: This video may include language that is startling to some folks ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#80 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:28 AM

Pratt actually asserts that the violent crime rate in the global north countries that have banned guns (read: Britain, Australia) have actually gone up as there is no fear instilled in criminals of a potentially armed victim. With lower populations than America, and higher violent crime (rape, assault, stabbings etc.) than America, it's concerning to see. Of course, Morgan dismisses it, calling it a lie, and finally resorts to ad hominem attacks. Totally unprofessional, don't know how he is a journalist still especially after the phone hacking scandal.

You do realize that the Inquiry into the phone hacking scandal (the Leveson Inquiry) that produced the Leveson Report concluded there was no evidence to establish that Piers Morgan authorized phone hacking, or that the Mirror engaged in the practice under his editorial watch?

This evidence does not establish that Mr Morgan authorised the hacking of voicemails or that journalists employed by TMG were indulging in this practice. What it does, however, clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in the press as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it.


That claim on violent crime rates being greater in the UK than the US has been made by a number of gun nut apologists.

On the surface it may even appear valid until you realize that countries define violent crime differently and comparing violent crime rates between countries is like comparing apples and orangutans. That is the reason studies of crime rates focus on homicide rates because that is as close to a universal standard as one can get.

A New Zealand study pointed out the difficulties and re-weighted the data using New Zealand as the base comparison:

This paper compares the rate of recorded violent crime in New Zealand to rates of violent crime for a range of other western countries. Information regarding the rate of violent crime in New Zealand is presented in a format that enables comparison with other western countries’ data.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2000/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/documents/international-comparisons-of-violent-crime.pdf


As the New Zealand study points out this is pretty much an apples and orangutans comparison on violent crime raw numbers and rates because of the definition of violent crime, differences in reporting, etc. And it is why valid crime comparisons between countries are pretty much limited to homicides.

The biggest problem as the study notes:

The definitions used for violent crime in America differ considerably from the New Zealand definition of violent offences. In UCR statistics, violent crime is composed of four offences: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible ****, robbery, and aggravated assault.



And that is true when comparing the US to other countries including the UK.

Comparisons between different countries
Differences in definitions of violent crime make international comparisons problematic, and account for at least some of the apparent differences in recorded violent crime rates between countries. Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods.
...
Besides definitional differences, recorded crime figures are likely to be affected by
many other factors including:
• Rates at which crimes are reported to, and recorded by, the police
...
• Differences in the point at which crime is recorded
...
• Differences in the rules when counting multiple offences by individuals
...
• Whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the
number of victims
...
• Changes in data quality over time
...
• The population standards used to calculate crime rates per capita

http://www.justice.g...olent-crime.pdf

As that report points out the differences just in definitions can be massive. Look at the how New Zealnd comes out when the US model is applied and then that of the UK (England and Wales in this case).

If you use the US definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 4):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violent offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the American definition of violent crime
Number of offences recorded in NZ - 5095
Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 132.6

If you use the UK definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 8):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the England and Wales’ definition
Number of offences recorded in NZ - 46291
Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 1204.5

Basically a difference of a factor of 9 times.

And using Canada as the measuring stick is different from the US and UK - basically split the difference.

If you use the Canadian definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 10):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the Canadian definition
Number of offences recorded in New Zealand - 21181
Rate per 100,000 population recorded in New Zealand - 551.1

In the case of comparisons of violent crime numbers and rates between the US and UK it may be more than apples and orangutans - it is better described as apples and alien mutant orangutans.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#81 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,417 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:37 AM

4 for 4 .. next? .. why, :) we shall discuss the Vatican Archives ..


No you have to raid the Vactican Archives. There might be interesting and historical information that's been suppressed in there.
Hey look, a document that said Jesus married Mary Magdalene! Look! The Ark of the Covenant! LOL.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#82 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:41 AM

No you have to raid the Vactican Archives. There might be interesting and historical information that's been suppressed in there.
Hey look, a document that said Jesus married Mary Magdalene! Look! The Ark of the Covenant! LOL.


Would that not be the treasure trove of all time? .. the knowledge and information stored there would destroy, or at least alter, civilization as we know it .. like lemmings, many folk would rush headlong into oblivion ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#83 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:47 AM

Nutty Americans. What a circus. I'm happy that I made the decision to stop consuming this garbage 30+ years ago.

It'll stunt your growth.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#84 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,628 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:11 PM

I wouldn't be so sure: the U.S. couldn't win Guerilla wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taking on a (hypothetical) armed and determined American population would be a much harder task for the U.S. military.

However that is besides the point.


Agreed, a lot of US Soldiers would mutiny before firing on their own citizens on their own soil. That's why UN troops would be used in this type of civil unrest.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#85 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

Agreed, a lot of US Soldiers would mutiny before firing on their own citizens on their own soil. That's why UN troops would be used in this type of civil unrest.


Beware the Hessians .. they are looking for revenge .. :picard:
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#86 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,628 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:25 PM

Beware the Hessians .. they are looking for revenge .. :picard:


Sure bud.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#87 Cooker

Cooker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 03

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:41 PM

You do realize that the Inquiry into the phone hacking scandal (the Leveson Inquiry) that produced the Leveson Report concluded there was no evidence to establish that Piers Morgan authorized phone hacking, or that the Mirror engaged in the practice under his editorial watch?

This evidence does not establish that Mr Morgan authorised the hacking of voicemails or that journalists employed by TMG were indulging in this practice. What it does, however, clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in the press as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it.


That claim on violent crime rates being greater in the UK than the US has been made by a number of gun nut apologists.

On the surface it may even appear valid until you realize that countries define violent crime differently and comparing violent crime rates between countries is like comparing apples and orangutans. That is the reason studies of crime rates focus on homicide rates because that is as close to a universal standard as one can get.

The definitions used for violent crime in America differ considerably from the New Zealand definition of violent offences. In UCR statistics, violent crime is composed of four offences: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible ****, robbery, and aggravated assault.

In the case of comparisons of violent crime numbers and rates between the US and UK it may be more than apples and orangutans - it is better described as apples and alien mutant orangutans.


Yes, high profile celebrities seem to always be innocent when the government is involved.

Also, appreciate that research. Very informative.

On another note, a lot of the homicide rates in America have to do with gangs and the drug trade. I doubt any ban could prevent these people from obtaining guns. And even then, these crimes are mainly committed with handguns, nothing the proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons could stop.
  • 0

#88 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,356 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:03 PM

While I somewhat agree with the points Piers is trying to make, he is a massive tool.
I disagree with what Alex Jones says, and he too is a massive tool, but his videos are at least (probably unintentionally) hilarious.

Edited by Jägermeister, 13 January 2013 - 01:03 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#89 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Yes, high profile celebrities seem to always be innocent when the government is involved.

Also, appreciate that research. Very informative.

On another note, a lot of the homicide rates in America have to do with gangs and the drug trade. I doubt any ban could prevent these people from obtaining guns. And even then, these crimes are mainly committed with handguns, nothing the proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons could stop.

We have similar problems in Canada with drugs and gangs but gun control legislation significantly reduces the carnage.

Also the prevalence of unsecured and unsafely stored guns in the US means a much higher incidence of firearm related homicides and injuries to the owner, his/her family, friends and guests in the home as well as enabling suicides. There are any number of studies that bear this out.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#90 Cooker

Cooker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 03

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:57 PM

We have similar problems in Canada with drugs and gangs but gun control legislation significantly reduces the carnage.

Also the prevalence of unsecured and unsafely stored guns in the US means a much higher incidence of firearm related homicides and injuries to the owner, his/her family, friends and guests in the home as well as enabling suicides. There are any number of studies that bear this out.


Yes, Canada has 1/3 the amount of homicides compared to the United States with a 10x decrease in population.

I do believe people should be smarter with their storage of guns. I also believe that it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, but from the potential threat of others. There's no legislation that can prevent stupid.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.