While I don't recall Jefferson mentioning anything about the politeness of an armed society, he did specify that it was a generally safer society. Safer from criminals, invading armies, and governmental tyranny.
In my research, I've come to conclude that an armed society isn't necessarily any more "polite." Politeness is a result of everyone understanding the potential consequences of their actions. There are many reasons why the consequence of "death" may be accepted. Historically, in the U.S., there were times when the potential consequence of death as a result of criminal action was far less sure that the certain consequence of starvation or immediate loss of livelihood from inaction. In other words, "He might shoot me but I'm sure to starve if I don't rob him" has a certain definable weight. Another historical reasons that the potential consequence of death may be accepted is the general lack of hope. During 18th-19th Century Ireland, most of the young men and young women were socially disenfranchised and were more or less doomed to never be a landholder and always at the bottom of the social ladder. Non-heir men were sometimes called "boy" throughout their entire life, for instance. At that point you kinda think, "Live fast, die young." Another historic reason is the general believe that life is cheap and you're likely to die young anyway. This was pretty common among the inner-city poor of the 19th Century and, in fact, is still common today. Yet another reason to ignore the potential consequence of death is if the loss of social status would be intolerable. This didn't just apply to Landed Gentry engaging in duels, it applies to street gangs and every social strata in between.
Lots of other reasons, of course. Money, politics, religion, etc. You get the idea.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
