Question on Jesus flipping the money lenders tables

A word of disclaimer that this is not intended to be a gotcha post or inherently political. I grew up Presbyterian and come from a long line of Lutheran ministers, I have a deep appreciation for various aspects of religion and Christianity in particular. One story that did not make much sense growing up was about Jesus flipping the money lenders tables and how we are supposed to interpret that.

When Jesus flipped the tables he was acting out of anger. Not only did he act in violence but he also seemingly sort of contradicts other teachings of ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and that worship can be done in private just as well as in public. I’ve seen arguments that he was just acting in righteous anger or that they were defiling a place of worship.

To me it looks rather uncharacteristic of Jesus that not only would he act in a fit of violence (not necessarily against the money lenders themselves but against their property), but that he also seemed to be putting more importance on the place and practice of worship than the worship itself. If it was such an issue, why not just take issue with the practice of needing to sacrifice animals at all and be done with it?

And if there is such thing as righteous anger justifying violence against property in a house of worship, would it not be unreasonable for people to do similar things to churches that they see as out of touch and being for-profit like some particular megachurches?