Hobbes draws an anthropology before stating his theory of the state. But we should take care here, a few points:
firstly the anthropology is terribly negative and the conclusion are that without government we would leave in a violent state of nature. It's not that clear that without government the situation would be so violent and moreover, from scientific point of view, it's also not that clear that there was such a state of nature: homo sapiens could well have been really civilized when he became home sapiens.
Secondly Hobbes never concludes that we should be armed or anything like that. No. He concludes that we need a powerful state and that to build this state we need to give up some of our rights. We give some rights and the state acquire the obligation to protect us. If you think about it it goes totally against the American vision: Hobbes would probably agree that the citizen should give up their rights to be armed, to throw out the state of nature, and in return the state would protect them. This seems really hobbesian, not the reverse.
My point was: if we already live with such conditions we may have lost the fight to live in a decent society. And a society which is not decent is not a society, it's only an amalgam of people.
Are also all communities based on mutual fear? And how much the concept of community is part of the concept of society?