SpaceX has lost 2 F9 so far. The first exploded in flight, but the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase. The second fueling for the static fire test. In both cases, no crew would have been in danger, and of course the causes of the failures has been adressed.
But it will at least take another 12 months till the first planned crew flight. If everything goes well, the Falcon 9 will have about 30 more flights till then. A lot of opportunity to build a safety record.
> the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase
The chance of it being retrieved would have been much greater if the the parachutes hadn't been disabled. I expect a forum of engineers to know better than to assume everything would have worked correctly.
Everyone expects the LAS (launch abort system) to not be very reliable. So you're a bit optimistic about the outcome of the second failure: big danger for the crew.
It was a static fire, so crew wouldn't be on board anyway. 100% no danger to crew in that case. LAS is likely to be very reliable for ground aborts. Design criteria insist on high (say, 95%) total reliability for LAS.
Part of the reason you might want to do such static fires is as a way to trigger (and thus reveal) such problems without endangering crew.
But it will at least take another 12 months till the first planned crew flight. If everything goes well, the Falcon 9 will have about 30 more flights till then. A lot of opportunity to build a safety record.