"Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked."
Yes, that's exactly the why it should be perked, in a 3-gun configuration, and it was far cry from one of the most produced planes in the war in a 3-gun variant.
If we had the best variants for all planes I can see a dark future with 4-hispano planes all over the place, including p51s, spits, A20 etc. and MK103 equipped FW190s less 2 mg, and with GM-1.
Maybe they all should be there(?), but in that case, as perked variants.
Reducing the aircraft's regular damage by 33% (i.e. perking the 3-gun variant) wouldn't make it any less effective at obtaining shots or positioning on an opponent, or running them down.
To date, I've honestly never heard one single complaint of the damage the LA-7 does (except for forum discussions of perking the 3-gun variant, which even then isn't about damage, but historical accuracy).
If I want to fly an LA and ENY is over 5, I just up an LA-5 (which has two guns) and I see very little damage difference; the damage difference is negligible for those with decent marksmanship. I'm not sure why anyone thinks this would change the effectiveness or use of the aircraft.
The complaints of the LA-7 performance are almost always:
1) Speed
2) Maneuverability
3) Climb
4) Acceleration
By most accounts, the average player hates the LA's guns and their ballistics. I hear more people complaining about how bad the ballistics of the guns are than I hear of those who like them.
Point being, no one I'm aware of flies an LA-7 for its guns, and an LA-7's two-gun package wouldn't be a deterrent for any good player to fly it. It would be one thing if it was an N1K or F4U-1c - planes that are decent, but limited in overall performance. Yes, damage is one of the key reasons to fly them. However, with the LA-7, damage isn't on the average player's radar, it's just a bonus.
The entire line of reasoning seems to be hyperbole.
That said, I'd say to perk it, just for the effect of seeing who stops flying it. I know I wouldn't.