Trust someone who openly admits he's worse with a mouse than a control pad stick for aiming? That's hilarious. In each and every game that's come out on console that has allowed both input methods, the thumbstickers get destroyed by a competent mouse played, as expected. Developers who port games for PC or console after first making the other actually adjust the difficulty a lot of times just to make it easier to hit things on the console (auto aim, lock on aids, or dumb down enemy A.I. movement), or make them harder to hit them on PC if that version came second.
It's not even seriously debated in the real world. Developers have been trying for years to see if they can do it (fairly matching the two inputs without gimping mouse controls) and they simply can not do it, so they've given up.
With a mouse, you can simply look at an x/y position on your screen and can almost instantly whip the cursor to that spot before you pull the trigger. Your control over the rate of speed as you aim is extremely precise, unlike the thumbstick where you have to approximate the speed adjustment as you move. Strafing on console is used to help compensate for this lack of precision, but you never have to strafe to aim with the mouse. The level of sensitivity and responsiveness is not equal between the two methods.
For instance, if each control method can move you in any direction from, say, 1 to 1000 in speed, any decent mouse player can adjust from 30 speed to a gradual 300 speed to a near instant 700 speed and back down to 10 speed, all in different directions within a two second time period with little effort. The thumbstick control is simply unable to match that level of precision. It is impossible. You can't increase/decrease speed that smoothly, that quickly, and certainly not with pixel-perfect stop on a dime accuracy. Anyone who has played Counterstrike knows how effortlessly you can jump, whip around 180 degrees in the air and skillfully headshot a moving target up high on a bridge a quarter of a map away with your AK-47.
Here's a test for anyone.... if you are reading this on a computer, try and "write" your first and last name in cursive on the screen with the arrow as quickly as you can using the mouse. Even without seeing the results, you'll know that you did a competent job of it. Now switch on the PS3 browser and try to spell your name in cursive again with the arrow using the thumbstick. Clumsy ain't it? Even if you tweaked the sensitivity and practiced for ten years straight with the stick, you won't ever match the speed and precision of the mouse. Ignoring the speed difference, you'll have to admit that you are still writing smoother and more accurately with a mouse.
Actually, these 1:1 wand control inputs actually have the potential to be more precise for average gamers than the mouse, but I'd be happy with it simply matching the precision. My brother is a casual and never could quite get mouse control down in FPS battles since he doesn't practice a lot, but for light gun games he is an expert marksman. These wand controllers are closer to light gun styled inputs than we've ever had (except for light guns themselves of course), so I'll be interested in seeing how quickly he catches on to something like the Arc.
EDIT: Here's a quote
from the developer of the FPS title "The Agency" coming for PC and PS3 that states the obvious - unless you unfairly gimp mouse controls or unfairly buff up console control (with auto aim, etc.) they are unequal:
The second problem is gameplay balance, as the difference between PC mouse-and-keyboard versus the PS3's controls gains particular weight with a shooter.
"We can do things to equalize them, whether that's aim assist on the console or other things on the PC, but when we've actually done focus group testing and so forth, you're always going to have the console players versus the PC players," Wilson says. "There's always a dynamic of 'It's not fair!' for whatever reason. So, it is important that we take those considerations on that."