I think OP's phrase structure was likely:

   [[blunt knives] and forks]  

rather than

   [blunt [knives and forks]]

A modern eating fork is a blunt fork. An older fork wasn't really a tool for eating from, but was really more like one of the large meat forks one uses to carve a turkey or otherwise hold meat. The tines were longer and there were often fewer of them. On top of this, they were sharpened to a point.

The difference is more like the difference between a sharp kitchen or steak knife and a dulled butter knife (even if it has a point). Sure, you can kill someone with the dull butter knife, if it doesn't bend and you hit the right spots, but it is going to be more difficult than the proper knife.

A knife can easily lethally wound someone before they can react, and before people nearby can help.

Are you trying to argue with the idea that forks are safer than knives?

Like yeah you can kill someone with a push-pin or a howitzer, but what's your point?

Any modern fork, essentially. The tips are flat or rounded, never pointy. While it might be possible to kill someone with it, given enough training and/or determination, I don't think it would fall into "incredibly easy".

> It would be incredibly easy to kill someone with any ordinary metal fork

Only in the movies, unless you use a grill or pitch fork.

I don't know about incredibly easy, but certainly possible. If you stab somebody in the chest with a fork, it won't penetrate as deeply as a dagger, and there's a higher probability that the ribcage will stop the blow and spare the internal organs. Forks are less-lethal utensils.

Not nearly as easy as it would be to kill with a sharp knife. A fork only has so much travel and would have a hard time penetrating tough tissues such as the epicardium. Besides, people don't seem to stay still when being killed, would you? So maybe not so easy to kill with a fork.