I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft.
Well, you may believe it but what evidence is there for it? The Cirrus has been the world's best selling light airplane for a decade. There are thousands out there. The stats quite clearly show the Cirrus is as safe or safer than comparable airplanes.
On the other hand, why shouldn't the CAPS be used to extend the range of conditions someone is comfortable flying in? You could make the same criticism of multi-engine airplanes. I fly a twin to be more comforable in conditions I'd be wary of in a single. To some extent, the CAPS offers a degree of comparable risk mitigation. I have an instrument rating so I can fly in conditions I'd be wary of if I didn't. So if I'd be wary, say, of flying over terrain at night in a single without CAPS, why shouldn't I fly a Cirrus in these conditions if I judge the extra risk mitigation sufficient?
I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent.
Similarly, no evidence to support that is a systemtic issue for the Cirrus. Plenty of data on the accident rates of glass vs non glass versions of the same type, they're similar.