There is a deep difference between those who lean hard to the freedom-ward, and those who don't on this issue. What is that distinction?
What is the moral difference between agents of the state and non-agent citizens?
Statists of various stripes suggest that the state is positioned well to make intelligent decisions about how the subject are allowed to live, and therefore that agents of the state should be treated morally differently than the garden-variety subject of the state.
Libertarians of various stripes argue instead that the state is almost never likely to make impartial decisions, and therefore that agents of the state should be treated morally identically to ordinary citizens.
This difference is perhaps most noticeable in the issue of gun control.
The statist suggests that the police and perhaps some specific deputized citizens should be able to protect everyone against violence, and that others have no such right...and certainly not via firearms.
The libertarian, contrarily, suggests that it is a moral failing for a person to go unarmed. As a citizen, it is my right and my duty to protect myself, my family, and perhaps my community. Only the incompetent and newly arrived have any business depending on the generosity of the community to protect them while not shouldering their own portion of the burden.
This is my favorite pro-gun argument...not intended to convince anyone...but my friend Paul Hsieh , philosopher, and general smart guy brought it up many years ago when my travel prohibited me from carrying. Your moral status within the world shifts when you carry a lethal weapon on your person. You can no longer be a child or a sheep, nor can you allow your passions to carry you off. You must become an adult; a sheepdog. And doing it of your own volition is particularly praiseworthy. And hopefully you don't condescend too much to the sheep and children you end up protecting.