From what I have seen on the internet, the recent extra training that Cirrus has introduced has decreased the Cirrus accident/death rate to a little below the GA average. That means that your friend is wrong to insist that you should not fly in one. It sounds like your friend has had to organise for payments on fatal accidents involving people that he knew and that that has skewed his thinking.
As for taking your family flying, the fatal accident in GA is about 1/100 000 hours. If you fly your family 50 hours per year, then you have a risk of death of 1/2000 per year. The all-cause death rate for middle-aged people is about 1/2000 and for older children about 1/500. Those deaths include expected deaths, such as cancer, not just traumatic deaths. Assuming that your family members are healthy, and you fly them 50 hours a year, if they die, it will probably be in your airplane. Does that mean that you should not fly them? Nope. But it does not mean that you have nothing to think about either.
Others have pointed out that if would be cheaper and more efficient for your to fly on an airline. It would also be cheaper to hire someone to fly you back and forward in their light aircraft, too. This means that the aircraft you should by is the aircraft that you will enjoy flying that will still be halfway sensible at meeting you needs. Which is will be more *fun*, a Cirrus, a Twin Comanche, a King Katmai, a Barron, a turboprop, a touring Extra 300?
My Answer: one or two of the funnest planes around and fly between your farms and the nearest commercial hub. Or, to take your family, one or two Cessna 172's if they are short hops. You can work up to bigger and better planes.
Disclaimer: I am learning to fly in an Aeroprakt A22LS Foxbat and have about 10 hrs so far. I am not interested in fun, but in being able to land on rough strips. Taking up one family member at a time will be plenty.