Commentary: United in grief, Americans divided in defense after Orlando massacre

Sunday's mass shooting in Orlando in the U.S. state of Florida shocked Americans with its level of atrocity. Armed with an assault rifle, Omar Mateen killed 49 people at a gay nightclub before being shot dead; 53 others were injured.

Though united in grief, horror and outrage, Americans remain deeply divided over three major issues: gun control, immigration and how to fight terrorism.

Taking place in the lead-up to the 2016 race to the White House, the bloodbath, which was quickly utilized by both parties to seek political leverage, magnifies the deep and bitter division facing the country.

First and foremost, the deadliest shooting massacre in modern U.S. history once again reopened the old wounds of Americans as the country, with more than 300 million guns scattered nationwide, has long been plagued by gun violence.

The Orlando shooting has further fueled the debate on guns, sparking calls for tighter gun control law to keep Americans safer. Advocates say it's inconceivable that the killer was able to legally purchase firearms despite being on a police watch list for possible links to terrorism.

However, those on the other side of the aisle simply argue that more gun control would be tantamount to disarming law-abiding Americans and leaving them more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Like every single mass shooting, the aftermath of the Orlando massacre is that public outrage at gun violence would slowly fade over time.

Then, facing a tragedy like this, whether the United States becomes "more inclusive" or "more fenced off" remains an open question. The Orlando mass shooting came just half a year after a terrorist attack killed 14 people and left 22 seriously injured in San Bernardino,California.

Perpetrators of the two attacks, Syed Rizwan Farook, an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, and Mateen, an American-born citizen whose parents immigrated from Afghanistan, share some similarities: they are the children of immigrants and pledged allegiance to IS.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump doubled down on his pledge to ban Muslim immigration immediately after the Orlando shooting spree. The campaign rhetoric boosted Trump's ratings, just as it did following the San Bernardino and Paris terror attacks.

The inflammatory campaign rhetoric isn't coming out of thin air. Quite the opposite. Trump, who also proposed building a wall along the Mexican border, is tapping into the security fears of Americans.

The "fenced-off" rhetoric, though eye-catching, makes it hard to win broader support. It is even likely to flare up ethnic tensions as it instigates discrimination and hatred and isolates the Muslim community.

As the FBI investigates whether Mateen is a "lone wolf" or belongs to the Islamic State, the answer bears no difference to the radical group that has overtaken vast swaths of Syria and Iraq and unleashed the deadly attack on Paris.

It has motivated, through extremist propaganda online, home-grown, radicalized "lone wolf" attackers who act in sympathy with it.

The Orlando attack makes it clear that it is precisely a disconnected, unpredictable attack that leads to devastating results. In the face of intensified marginalization, radical groups are bound to carry out more attacks and make society even more vulnerable.

Facing terrorist attacks like the one in Orlando, the prescription that effectively works is none other than social tolerance.

Then comes the third divide -- whether the United States needs a tougher counter-terrorism strategy or new one altogether.

John Bolton, the fiery conservative who has served as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on Fox News that "President Obama's strategy against terrorist bases of operation, when it is evident at all, has been lackadaisical and offhanded."

A slow, casual offensive against the IS, gives terrorists time and opportunity to encourage strikes like the one in Orlando, Bolton added.

The Orlando massacre has tragically underlined that the United States is still trapped in the vicious cycle that it is seeing more and more terrorist attacks despite years of efforts to fight them.

How can terrorism be fought while ensuring national security has become the focal point of debate between political parties.

However, the debate is not necessarily yielding something positive. The Iraq war launched in the name of "war on terror", as well as the ongoing wars in Syria and Iraq, resulted in the social structural collapse of some Arab countries, thus providing opportunities for the IS to rise and thrive.

The key question is not how to fight terrorism, but rather how to discard power politics in fighting terrorism.

The Washington Post wrote on Sunday that "Not since 9/11 has a moment like this brought the nation together, and that evaporated quickly. Since then, calamity seems only to drive the left and the right further apart, while faith in the nation's institutions deteriorates further."

The Orlando massacre further proves it right as grief for the victims has been overshadowed by the country's bitter political divide. It seems like a mission impossible to compromise and figure out a solution in the political wrangle between the left and right. Endi