Lol? Mouse isn't really more accurate than a controller. It's what you're used to. Then again, aimbot really screws the game for me, and I'm much better off without it. I avoid lots of life, because then reactions and skill matter less than gun choice. A good example of this is COD:WAW. I usually play hardcoe with an unscoped Bolt-Action, and still am able to win.
In some ways I agree, for medium-scale aiming the controller is every bit as accurate. For fine aiming (Talking very small targets or very large distance) you can't beat a mouse, but the important bit is for fast movement, you simply cannot beat a mouse. You just can't, a controller doesn't have the range to allow both fine aiming AND speedy movement.
For example, yesterday I was playing Stalker: Call of Pripyat. At one point in the game I got into a... heated dissagreement with a few bandits, one of them was in front of me and the other behind. Now, a controller would certainly let you aim and shoot the one in front of you every bit as efficiently, but the one behind me? Given that I had about a second to shoot the guy in front AND the guy behind, no controller setup could have saved me there, but with a mouse it was just a case of moving my hand faster. On my way out there was a bandit in a lookout point quite a way away - even at 1680x1050 and a 4x scope his head was just a few pixels across. Again, a controller would require a lot of small manipulation to aim at that, but with a mouse you simply move your hand slower.
It's not a bad point for the controller, it's just inherent in their two designs. A mouse retains accuracy over a greater range of motion, but for that little cone immediately around your crosshair the difference between a controller and mouse is small, so the corridor shooter style play of many console games is designed to the controller's strength, not its weakness.