I believe one characteristic of agnostics is not only going by logic and evidence, but also being open-minded to consider both sides before drawing any firm conclusions.
I believe that there is some sentiment on the Democrat side to ban as many guns as they can or make it very hard to get and use one. On the Republican side, I think there's a sentiment that more guns (and also less restrictions) would lead to less crime. Unfortunately, both sides are extreme, especially when they are unwilling to compromise.
In my view, guns can coexist with little to no gun crime, including mass shootings. I say this because everyone with a gun is not committing crimes, and therefore not everyone or the gun is a problem. If guns were the problem then every gun owner would be committing gun crimes, including cops, military personnel, Secret Service guards, etc but that's not the case. If you look for patterns, then one that emerges is that it is usually criminals (those who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place) and the mentally ill that are responsible for the vast majority of gun crimes. All it would take to reduce gun crime then is to keep guns out of the hands of the population causing the most gun crime.
Some want an assault rifle ban, but I don't believe that's even necessary. A semi-automatic assault rifle can be made to be on the same level as a handgun and that's by simply limiting the number of rounds it carries. An AK47 that can only shoot 10 to 14 rounds at a time would be no more deadly than a handgun that holds 14 rounds, assuming AK47 is SEMI-automatic of course, where one pull of the trigger fires only ONE round. Therefore, I'd be in favor of limiting large capacity magazines as opposed to banning rifles.
At a later date, I'll offer my view on requirements that should be in place to purchase guns or maybe someone else can chime on that here, as well.