The best selling handguns in the US have always been the cheapest and the worst...why? Because they're cheap. It's a legitimate example, because a handgun is a device intended to save one's life. Never the less, the uninformed buyer and user often selects based on irrational criteria; price is one such example. Point is that simply because something sells well, means very little.
The same may be said of the Cirrus. Is it the best, the worst, or just another aircraft? It could be any of those things, but the numbers sold are irrelevant.
I used to fly the most produced airplane ever built. When I flew it, there were five remaining in the world, and now there are four. Does making the most, or selling the most make it the best or serve as any particular recommendation for the type design? No.
If one experiences a mishap but doesn't die, does this mean it's a safe design? We've cited a number of Cirrus mishaps, most of which weren't fatal...yet very easily could have been for the occupants as well as those on the ground. Several of these incidents were owing to the parachute itself, as previously identified. Simply because someone doesn't die...means very little. One would hardly entertain a prospective pilot for a professional position who's chief qualificationis "Well, I did it before, and I didn't die."
The parachute for the Cirrus is a gimmick. It lures pilots into doing stupid things in the misguided hope of having an "out." Even an ejection seat lures young military pilots into doing stupid things they might not do without the seat, and anti-icing and de-icing equipment lures pilots into the ice...where they wouldn't go without that equipment, shouldn't be with the equipment, but somehow feel justified because of the magic words "known ice."
The parachute assembly on the Cirrus should be considered much like a handgun with one round left. You'll probably get hurt very badly, likely die, but if you've got no choices left, then it's better than nothing. Such events should be reserved for situations such as a wing which is no longer attached to the airplane, not for times when one elects to undertake a foolish and risky flight beyond one's own capabilities and that of the airplane. It's a dubious emergency device, not a hail-mary, and not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It should not be relied upon to work, and one should NEVER predicate a purchase of the aircraft, or undertake a flight, because the CAPS is on board.
When the manufacturer specifically stipulates that the use of the CAPS should be expected to cause significant airframe damage and very likely severe injury or death, this is a telling thing, and shouldn't be lightly disregarded. Remember, that's not the counsel of a critic, but the one selling the aircraft. Too bad such counsel is buried behind slick advertising and a snappy interior and avionics suite that more resembles a rental car than an airplane.