As Genghis mentions, I understand it was required to make up for other handling deficiencies. It would be those deficiencies which would worry me! I understand that it is a somewhat limited envelope of flight, for which the 'chute can be deployed, what about all the flying you do which is not in that envelope? If the Cirrus had flying characteristics which did not require a BRS, and it was a factory option, I would buy the plane without, given the choice.
As I just posted, the Cirrus installation of the ballistic parachute was an intentional safety feature and not required to make up for any deficiencies. This misinformation is unfortunate -- the Cirrus is a high-performance airframe with laminar flow wings and stall inhibiting design that stalls conventionally and recovers from spins conventionally.
As for buying a Cirrus if it had an option you could decline, there are several Cirrus owners who admit that was their initial desire, but they had no choice. And they still have no choice.
Now, after 28 saves of 53 survivors in a wide variety of scenarios, those owners enthusiastically support the parachute as a factory configuration and are convinced that the parachute adds a level of safety unlike any other.
See this
history of Cirrus parachute pulls. People have survived catastrophic engine failure, maintenance induced failures, high-altitude loss of control, low-altitude loss of control, icing, fuel exhaustion, misfueling with Jet-A, and pilot incapacitation. Landings under parachute have occurred in forests, trees, shrubs, golf courses, mountain slopes, inhospitable terrain, rivers, lakes, oceans, power lines, residential street, soft fields, frozen fields, essentially lots of places you would not want to risk an off-airport landing.
There are lots of reasons for personal preferences in choosing an airplane. Please ensure that your choices are based on factual ones.
Cheers
Rick