instead of a relevant publication says something in itself. It usually means it would fail. BTW, forensics experts point out microstamping doesn't work and would not solve a single crime and was sold to politicians by the one company that has the patent, and monopoly, on the technology.
http://arbalestquarrel.com/microstamping-work/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping

I would like to see what this argument is based on, since two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. I think it is fair assumption that the weapon used is almost always recovered at the scene. BTW, we have had background checks for two decades.

http://nypost.com/2012/04/02/cuomo-whacks-pataki-gun-law/

It was expensive and didn't solve a single crime. Microstamping is just a new wrinkle on ballistic fingerprinting. A key difference is that old-style ballistic fingerprinting depended on reading the markings that were already there from the routine functioning of the firearm. Microstamping will create new marks specifically for ID purposes. However, it will be no more effective than COBIS was because it proceeds from the same flawed premise: that matching spent brass found at crime sites will enable arrests and prosecutions. That theory is full of holes, as has been explained time and time again and as has been proven by New York's example.

And of course the main difference is that COBIS was paid for by the state with tax money. Microstamping's costs will be borne by the manufacturers and consumers of firearms. And that's really the whole point, isn't it? Who cares about solving crimes? It's all about culture war and thinking of new ways to fuck with gun owners and manufacturers

In years past, pro-gun control research was treated like pro-drug war research: Printed-as-written in vast quantities without any refutation or "other side" being presented.
Now, at least, there is some kind of pushback. But why the med journals? Do they have a publishing lock on gun research; is that the only stuff MSM will print?

As a gun control advocate I also find the study a bit too optimistic in crime reduction, and note that I am not alone, since gun control advocates from Johns Hopkins and Harvard School of Public Health, also disagree with the study's findings.
The rub is the 90% reduction, which is unrealistic, perhaps just 'a priori' reasoning. Most gun control groups contend that the best we can hope for in implementing gun regulations is a marginal improvement over existing gun deaths & gun crime. Like 10% to 20% reductions.
The dramatic national decline across the board in violent crime from early 90's to present 2016, was from a record high in violent crime rates, and coincided with a 30 - 35% decline in gun ownership rates during the same time period (along with the clinton anti crime initiative implemented circa 1994), so that dramatic decline cannot scientifically be attributed to either gun control efforts, or 'more guns ie national gunstock'. Less people per capita owning guns I'd go along with.

Experts noted that the laws, which were on the books in only three states, were not actually being implemented in practice.
That “would be the biggest red flag, obviously, when they’re finding huge effects of a law that doesn’t exist”, Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said. He called the paper’s approach “just not good science”.

While some of the paper’s findings are interesting, it’s “highly questionable” whether other results “are an accurate reflection of reality”, David Hemenway, a leading gun violence researcher at Harvard’s school of public health, wrote in a comment published along with the paper.

Bindu Kalesan, the paper’s lead author, defended its findings as important contributions to an extremely complex and difficult area of research. The criticisms of the paper were “expected”, she wrote.