I don't think Locke has anger management issues. I mean, we all get angry about certain things but it's just contrasted more with Locke because he's normally so laid back. I think what we've seen is a sheer frustration with the situations Locke has had to encounter.
Boone - I realise Locke was partly responsible for Boone's death in round about way but he didn't know exactly what would happen. I think he was just following his faith in the Island and believed he was being led by forces outwith his control or knowledge. I mean, really, if you'd had that vision you wouldn't know what it really meant, or even know it was some sort of fore-sight. If you were a person of faith you'd just know it was leading you to your destiny.
Charlie - Locke's anger was
entirely justified in this situation. Fundamentally Locke hit Charlie because he had put a defenseless baby in a lot of danger. If he was angry with Charlie earlier in the day it's because everything he invested in to Charlie was thrown back in his face. Charlie would try the patience of a saint and I don't think Locke acted irrationally at all. If anything here, Locke's anger saved others from danger rather than put them in it.
Sayid/Ben - I don't think Locke's siding with Sayid was merely a tool to get back at Jack. I mean, at this point Ana-Lucia had made it quite clear the threat the others had posed to the taillies and they all knew the others had Walt and had blown up the raft. I think Locke wasn't entirely comfortable with the proposed torture of Ben but trusted Sayid that this was the only method to find out the truth. His anger here was directed at the others and the potential threat that this one man could pose, thus his actions again were to portect the greater safety of his fellow survivors.
The Destruction of the Computer - The loss of faith in the button/hatch came about from seeing 'evidence' that it had all been in vain. Obviously Locke was angry about this...naturally. The decision to stop the button being pushed was calculated and long thought out, not an immediate knee jerk reaction. I think Locke truely believed that the button did
nothing, and that no one's safety would be compromised. He thought he was liberating people, which in a way he did now they don't have to keep pressing the damn button!
Now, I'm not biased at all obviously (
) but no, I don't think Locke puts people in danger due to his anger. I think everyone could be a whole lot safer with Locke leading them than they were with Jack.