Would-Be Instagram Models Shouldn’t Write Self-Defense Articles

One of the biggest problems with much of what’s written on the topic of self-defense is that most of the articles finding their way into “mainstream” publications are written by idiots. By “mainstream” I mean any publication not specifically about self-defense, guns, knives, or other industry related topics and products. By “idiot,” I mean “normie” contributors whose knowledge of self-defense starts and ends with what they’ve seen on Netflix. When a Basic White Girl™, a would-be Instagram model, publishes a piece on self-defense in which she gets almost every single thing wrong, you are observing this phenomenon.

Such is the case with Jahla Seppanen’s “8 Self-Defense Weapons that Men Can Realistically Carry (and Use),” published on 22 April, 2019 in something called “The Manual.” For a woman who probably weighs 120 pounds soaking wet, Seppanen is already at a disadvantage trying to advise men, not women, on what weapons they “can” carry. No, you don’t have to be a woman to speak with authority on women’s self-defense; no, you don’t have to be a man to advise men on men’s self-defense. Some actual knowledge of the topic, however, is required before you run your mouth and get someone murdered through bad advice. That’s the issue.

Seppanen begins with the bizarre and unexplained premise that “your legitimate arsenal of self-defense tools should be easy to carry and non-lethal. The self-defense weapons below are discreet, cost under $35, and are proven to work.” Every single component of this assertion is false.

Firstly, what qualifies as “legitimate?” Clearly, Seppanen is utterly uninformed on the nature of self-defense, the use of force, and the tools used to multiply force. A firearm is a perfectly “legitimate” tool of self-defense, if we define as legitimate those items that are (at least provisionally) legal to own, legal to carry, and effective when used properly. Seppanen cannot claim that by “legitimate,” she means always legal, as some of the items on her list are not legal in every state. She cannot mean, by “legitimate,” that these tools enjoy some kind of endorsement by the authorities, either — as those are the same people who’ll arrest you for carrying some of the gadgets on the list.

It seems clear to me that by “legitimate,” Seppanen merely means “Things that don’t make me uncomfortable.” Her list omits entirely both firearms and knives, the two most powerful individual self-defense tools. The listed items further contradict Seppanen’s claims. I would not consider an air horn to be a “discreet” weapon, nor is it “proven to work.” The woman even goes so far as to claim that YouTube tutorials will be sufficient for most people to learn how to use these weapons. They won’t, nor will a single “self-defense class” in which you “show no fear” be sufficient to prepare you for violence.

It’s possible that some editor changed Seppanen’s title to better appeal to a targeted male demographic. Men are likely to skip over a piece on women’s self-defense tools. Seppanen’s piece is obviously written with women in mind. The casual ignorance it contains is fairly typical of most mainstream women’s self-defense advice.

The first item on the list is pepper spray. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not a huge fan of pressurized self-defense chemicals, simply because it’s very likely you’ll experience some of their effects yourself when you use them. Like most people who advocate pepper sprays, Seppanen does not mention this fact. She also does not provide any useful advice on how to test and prepare yourself for using such sprays.

Next, Seppanen recommends a stun-gun flashlight. Stun guns are okay. They’re not particularly effective on highly motivated or chemically altered assailants, but I don’t have an issue with them. I do have a problem with combining stun guns with flashlights or any other object intended to disguise the weapon. I think you’re just asking for trouble combining your accessories like that; the possibility of getting confused is too high. A dedicated stun gun is simple and easy to use. A flashlight stun-gun is needlessly complicated and too much like a gimmick.

Seppanen calls the FAST STRIKE™ Non Lethal Self Defense weapon a “Biker Whip,” for some reason; this may be new marketing on the company’s part, or may be her own editorializing. I’ve evaluated the tool myself and found it reasonable enough. It’s a very specialized item that is really meant only as a deterrent, however. It’s not going to stop or neutralize anyone definitively.

“Honestly,” Seppanen writes, “we prefer this to a gnarly baton which, used incorrectly, could cause irreparable damage.” She’s right about one thing: A baton can hurt someone, as can any impact weapon. She wrongly believes that hurting someone in self-defense is an “incorrect” use of such a tool, however. Using a weapon, a force multiplier, is an escalation of force. If you are legally justified in escalating force, then you are legally justified in hurting someone, even badly, if it is necessary to end the assault.

The same woman who does not want to cause “irreparable damage” thinks that breaking someone’s bones with a keychain kubotan is somehow perfectly acceptable. She’s correct that the tool is powerful. I’ve been extolling the virtues of pocket sticks for years. She’s simply ignorant when it comes to the damage that an impact weapon of this type can do.

The next item on the list is a pair of fanged “keychain knuckles” of the type you’ll often see called a “black cat” (or some variation thereof). Seppanen rightly points out that these aren’t legal if brass knuckles aren’t legal. In other words, these tools are illegal more often than they’re not. Including them on this list is simply stupid; if you could legally carry a pair of brass knuckles, you’d be better off with those than a plastic two-knuckle keychain version. If you can’t carry brass knuckles, you’re just asking to get arrested the next time you forget your keychain is on you when you walk through a security checkpoint.

The last item on the list is simply “your body,” and is probably an excuse to include an affiliate link to a sort-of self-defense training app. Before she gets to that, though, Seppanen loses her mind completely and advocates both an air horn and an alarm doorstop. Setting aside the fact that doorstops meant for home security are not weapons at all, and therefore don’t fit the article she’s writing, there is no way a noisemaker (no matter how loud) can protect you. Yes, bad guys tend not to like loud noises. No, a personal alarm (I don’t care which type) is not a viable self-defense weapon. It doesn’t matter if you’re a female jogger with one of those wrist-strap personal alarms or a man packing a “discreet” air horn in his back pocket. Making loud noise is not self-defense. At best, it’s simply something else you should be doing while you are defending yourself with a tool that works.

Jahla Seppanen’s article is stupid. It reeks of ignorance — of someone totally uninformed on a topic who attempts to use what she’s seen on YouTube and on the Internet to push affiliate links to the products discussed. This is bad advice and, reduced to its most absurd, will conceivably get someone murdered. Jahla Seppanen should not be writing articles on self-defense — not for men, not for women, and not in any capacity interpreted as authoritative.